Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jones v. Correct Care Solutions

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville

June 12, 2018

TREYSHAWN LEE JONES PLAINTIFF
v.
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS DEFENDANT

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          CLARIA BOOM, DISTRICT JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

         This is a pro se civil rights action brought by a pretrial detainee pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has granted Plaintiff Treyshawn Lee Jones leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This matter is before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Correct Care Solutions (CCS) but allow Plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint.

         I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

         Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant CCS, the healthcare provider at Louisville Metro Department of Corrections where Plaintiff is incarcerated.

         Plaintiff alleges that he chipped his tooth on November 25, 2017, and that after he filed multiple healthcare request forms with CCS, he was prescribed ibuprofen for pain. Plaintiff then states that on April 7, 2018:

CCS seen me for an appointment for their dentist to perform surgery. He drilled, cut, and pulled to extract my tooth. He also broke the crown of my tooth. He failed, leaving me in pain and half my tooth still in my mouth. He then prescribed me medication, Tylenol #3 and Amoxicillin 500 mg and scheduled an offsite dentist appointment. . . .

         Plaintiff then alleges that on April 12, 2018, “CCS provided another dentist. He tried to extract the rest of my tooth but the numbing medication he injected in my gum didn't work. He stopped leaving me again in pain and half my tooth still in my mouth.”

         Plaintiff concludes his complaint by stating that as of May 7, 2018, he is “still waiting for the offsite appointment.”

         Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         When a prisoner initiates a civil action seeking redress from a governmental entity, officer, or employee, the trial court must review the complaint and dismiss the complaint, or any portion of it, if the court determines that the complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See § 1915A(b)(1), (2); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007).

         In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “[A] district court must (1) view the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and (2) take all well-pleaded factual allegations as true.” Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561 F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted)). “But the district court need not accept a ‘bare assertion of legal conclusions.'” Tackett, 561 F.3d at 488 (quoting Columbia Natural Res., Inc. v. Tatum, 58 F.3d 1101, 1109 (6th Cir. 1995)). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.' Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]' devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557).

         Although this Court recognizes that pro se pleadings are to be held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991), “[o]ur duty to be ‘less stringent' with pro se complaints does not require us to conjure up unpled allegations.” McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979) (citation omitted). And this Court is not required to create a claim for Plaintiff. Clark v. Nat'l Travelers Life Ins. Co., 518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1975). To command otherwise would require the Court “to explore exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff, [and] would also transform the district court from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).

         III. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.