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.

Cameron v. State

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

November 30, 2018

TERRY LEE CAMERON PLAINTIFF
v.
STATE OF KENTUCKY et al. DEFENDANTS

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., District Judge United States District Court.

         Plaintiff Terry Lee Cameron filed the instant pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), proceeding in forma pauperis. This matter is before the Court on initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons stated below, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's claims upon initial screening.

         I.

         Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at the McCreary U.S. Penitentiary, is a former inmate at the Henderson County Detention Center (HCDC). In the original complaint, he sues the State of Kentucky and the HCDC. After being ordered to file his complaint on the Court-approved § 1983/Bivens form, Plaintiff named the following Defendants: “Federal Beuro of Prisons”; State of Kentucky; HCDC; Amy Brady and Ron Herrington, both of whom he identifies as Jailer of the HCDC; and the responding “Kitchen Officer” and the responding “Medical Officer.” He sues each of the individually named Defendants in their individual and official capacities.

         In the original complaint, Plaintiff stated as follows:

Medical Staff and Amy Brady an employee of the defendant did knowingly and without care for my health administer far too much insulin and the wrong kind of insulin as well as disregaurd my more than 31 grievances all of which made my complaints over their treatment of me more than clear. This took place from when I got to the [HCDC] . . . till I left the place from May of 2017 to March 2018. I believe the actions of the defendant that me injury were done with the profit of the investee's of the [HCDC] in mind.
In the amended complaint, Plaintiff states the following:
The following people of the F.B.P. [HCDC] violated federal laws in the performance of their duties which caused me undue harm by making me physically sick due to lack of proper med treatment and proper diet to maintain good health with my diabetic condition. Amy Brady (Jailer) Ron Herrington (Jailer) Responding kitchen officer and Responding medical officer of the [HCDC].
. . .
Please know that I was forced obey medical staff order or face inhouse punishment ie: solitary confinement. Med Staff purposely administered 3600 to many units of insulin over a 10 mo period and kitchen staff purposely deprived me of proper diet to keep my blood sugar levels at acceptable norms for a period of 10 mo. Two days after I proved inulin exp date was exceeded I was transferred to different facility.

         In both the original and amended complaint, Plaintiff lists numerous requisition forms and grievances by their numbers, which he states prove his case. In the amended complaint, he states that one of these grievances was stolen from his records, but he states that it “pointed out that the insulin I was receiving was out dated according to exp date on bottle.” As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive dates damages and injunctive relief in the form of “full redress of accused.”

         II.

         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 ...


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.