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.

Bradley-Farr v. McCracken County Jail

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

January 17, 2019

EBONY BRADLEY-FARR PLAINTIFF
v.
MCCRACKEN COUNTY JAIL et al. DEFENDANTS

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          THOMAS B. RUSSELL, SENIOR JUDGE

         This is a pro se civil rights action brought by a convicted prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court granted Plaintiff Ebony Bradley-Farr 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 some claims, allow others to proceed, and provide Plaintiff the opportunity to amend her complaint.

         I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT[1]

         Plaintiff is incarcerated at the McCracken County Jail (MCJ). She names the following as Defendants in this action - the MCJ, Southern Health Partners (SHP), MCJ Deputy Laurie Haynes Sullenger, and MCJ Deputy Marianne Carter. She sues MCJ Defendants Sullenger and Carter in both their official and individual capacities.[2]

         Plaintiff first alleges that upon her arrival to MCJ on May 2, 2018, she reported to the jail that she suffered from “HIGH GRADE Invasive Cervical Displasia.” She then writes as follows:

While incarcerated I begin to suffer from several issues and complications. I experienced severe bleeding, clotting, discharge and abdominal pain. I dropped multiple request for sick calls. A total of 43 sick calls over a period of 118 days. I was seen only once 05-18-18 and at that time I was told that the pain, discharge and bleeding were due to a UTI. I told Sherrie (LNU) that I didn't think it was from a UTI she insisted and gave me antibiotic (Bactrium) for 10 days. However, when the labs came back the UTI diagnosis was incorrect. After that I was never seen again and nothing was done to find the cause of the issue. I continued to have issues. I reported all of these issues to the medical staff but still nothing was done. After multiple sick requests and 8 grievances on July 28, 2108, I filed for medical furlough so I could get the necessary care and treatment I needed outside the facility. The okay to the medical furlough was granted and I was seen by an outside provider. At the time of my appointment (08-28-18) I was diagnosed with dilated tubular structure due to onset infection. The condition is [illegible] which was caused by infection left untreated causing inflammation to the fallopian tube due to the medical neglect at the hands of MCJ and Southern Health Partners. My previous condition also left untreated progressed further.

         Plaintiff further alleges that during this time she suffered from fever, vomiting, and mucus discharge. Plaintiff alleges that when she showed a “walnut-sized” blood clot to “LPN Sherrie, ” she told Plaintiff to get it away from her, and to throw it away, and “if I ever showed her anything like that again I would go to the HOLE.” Plaintiff also alleges that when she was seen by an outside provider, it was determined that she had an infection and that she needed to be sent “to the ER to receive an intravenous antibiotic.”

         Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Carter tracks the menstrual cycles of all female inmates and will only provide them nine pads per day for seven days each month. Plaintiff states that Defendant Carter is aware of her medical condition and that her sporadic bleeding causes her to need pads more often than Defendant Carter allows. She states that an MCJ captain told Defendant Carter that Plaintiff was not to be denied pads at any time. Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of Defendant Carter's “rule, ” she bled onto her clothing and bed linen on four occasions and caused them to be blood-soaked. Plaintiff states that this is “humiliating and cruel” treatment.

         Plaintiff further alleges that her “HIPAA Privacy Rights”[3] were violated by SHP staff when her “medical records and information were openly discussed and transferred with unauthorized inmates and jail staff.”

         Finally, Plaintiff claims that Defendant Sullenger failed to mail outgoing pieces of legal mail she had collected from Plaintiff on at least three occasions. Plaintiff alleges that other inmates have seen Defendant Sullenger put inmates' outgoing mail in the trash.

         As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         Because Plaintiff is a prisoner seeking relief against governmental entities, officers, and/or employees, this Court must review the instant action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under § 1915A, the trial court must review the complaint and dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, 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 § 1915A(b)(1), (2); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 544 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] 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)). “[A] pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). However, while liberal, this standard of review does require more than the bare assertion of legal conclusions. See Columbia Natural Res., Inc. v. Tatum, 58 F.3d 1101, 1109 (6th Cir. 1995). The Court's duty “does not require [it] to conjure up unpled allegations, ” McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979), or to create a claim for a 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 ...


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.