Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Jackson v. Janet

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

August 1, 2018




         Plaintiff Mark Anthony Jackson, filed a pro se, in forma pauperis complaint. This case is before the Court for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). For the following reasons, some claims will be dismissed, and others will be allowed to proceed.


         Plaintiff, an inmate at the Luther Luckett Correctional Complex (LLCC), names as Defendants Correct Care Solutions (CCS) Nurse Janet at Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR); CCS APRN Tina Lyons at KSR; CCS Nurse Dominique at KSR; and KSR case-worker Heather Horn. He also names as Defendant CCS Nurse Abigail at LLCC. All Defendants are named in their official and individual capacities.

         Plaintiff alleges that in November 2017, he was transferred to KSR, at which time Nurse Janet commented about the medication he had been treated with by Dr. Richards[1] for headaches since March 2017. According to the complaint, Nurse Janet said that Plaintiff did not need that medication (apparently Excedrin); that she did not know why Dr. Richards had given Excedrin to Plaintiff for a year; and that she would talk to Dr. Lyons and have it taken away. Plaintiff states that her remarks prompted him to file a grievance against her. He states that Nurse Janet continued to make comments and claimed that he was on a hunger strike.

         Plaintiff further alleges that APRN Lyons took him off of Excedrin and increased the amount of Topamax he was receiving. He states that APRN Lyons told him that he would not get the Excedrin back, to which he responded that Topamax does not help his “head hurts [and] to please figure out why it continues[.]

         She refused.” Plaintiff next alleges that both Nurse Dominique and Nurse Janet refused to give him a “med slip to be seen for my headaches then my medication comes up missing off the pill cart[.] [B]oth nurses told me I am not getting med slip for my headache [and] Tina Lyons order Topamax that's what I get and I will not be seen.” Plaintiff states that he notified the clinical director, who told him that “it's my right and they was two errors.”

         Apparently, Plaintiff was then transferred to LLCC, where he believed that he would be “treated for headaches cause I am back in Dr. Richard's care.” He states that once there he submitted a “med slip.” However, he states that he was told by Nurse Abigail that:

from the notes in the computer I will not be treated for headaches anymore and all I get is Topamax[.] [C]learly this is deny me medical care or adequate[] medical care in violation of 8th Amendment. There aware of incident that happen end of Feb. 2017 where an officer slam my body and head into wall. That's when head begin hurting. Now they won't treat me.

         Finally, Plaintiff alleges that case-worker Horn and non-Defendant Unit Administrator Mitchell were aware that he wanted to file a petition of declaration of rights, but Mitchell refused to let him mail it because of Plaintiff's indigence. Plaintiff states that he then gave it to caseworker Horn to mail a few days before he was transferred to LLCC. He alleges that the Oldham County court stated that it did not receive the mailing. He also states that the grievance that he filed “seem[ed] to disappear.” He alleges that his transfer was what the Kentucky Department of Corrections does “so they can say it is a moot issue and continue with the misconduct they do.” He alleges that, because his petition was not mailed, his effort to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim was hindered in violation of his Sixth Amendment right.

         As relief, Plaintiff asks for money damages and injunctive relief in the form of receiving “proper medical treatment test run to see cause of headaches” and to have all of his legal mail “be sent certified until 2020 while I am in Ky. Dept. of Corrections so it makes it to the proper location.”

         II. ANALYSIS

         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 action, if the Court determines that it 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 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and (2). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The Court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at 327. When determining whether a plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court must construe the complaint in a light most favorable to Plaintiff and accept all of the factual allegations as true. Prater v. City of Burnside, Ky., 289 F.3d 417, 424 (6th Cir. 2002). While a reviewing court must liberally construe pro se pleadings, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam), to avoid dismissal, a complaint must include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

         Official-capacity claims for monetary relief against ...

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.