United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Paducah Division
B. Russell, Senior Judge
Sean Pernestti filed a pro se, in forma
pauperis 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. This matter 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,
the action will be dismissed.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
is a convicted prisoner currently incarcerated at the
Roederer Correctional Complex. His complaint contains
allegations of events occurring during approximately one
month while he was housed at the Christian County Jail (CCJ).
He names as Defendants in their individual and official
capacities the following CCJ employees: Jailer Brad Boyd,
Colonel Steve Howard, Captain Burd, and Deputy Davenport.
alleges that on July 4, 2018, he pushed the call button to
request medical help but was not responded to for an hour, at
which time his blood sugar was checked and was 313. The
doctor was called but did not respond, and an hour later
Plaintiff asked to see Defendant Burd. Defendant Burd
apparently was not there, but a non-Defendant Deputy
rechecked Plaintiff, who “was 523, ” gave him
“required insulin, ” and contacted the doctor.
next alleges that on July 20, 2018, he pressed the call
button in his cell numerous times. He states that 30 minutes
later Defendant Davenport came to his cell to take another
inmate to sick call. Plaintiff states that he informed
Defendant Davenport that he needed medical attention but that
Defendant Davenport told him that he was not on the sick-call
“list and closed the door.” Plaintiff states that
he then gave Defendant Howard a grievance but that it
“never was responded to.” Plaintiff next alleges
that CCJ does not provide sufficient food; that trustees are
not supervised by staff when preparing food trays; that CCJ
does not use a properly trained dietician; and that CCJ does
not serve a proper diabetic diet. He also alleges that CCJ
allows the medical contractor to charge for doctor visits
when actually the inmates see a nurse practitioner. He also
alleges that on the evening of August 1, 2018,
“deputies knowingly deprived me of my prescribed
medication.” He states that he was told that this
occurred because he “was in the law library.”
I have started seeing blood spots in my left eye. I may have
damage to my kidneys from my sugar levels being so high. I
have requested medical care for these issues. I have not
received any treatment as of 8-2-2018. My vision was 20/20.
Now I feel in need of glasses. I have requested to see mental
health for almost a month to help deal with the anxiety from
fear of malicious treatment. They still haven't seen me.
relief, Plaintiff asks for punitive damages, refund of
“all doctor fees charged to all inmates seen by nurse
practitioner, ” and various injunctive relief.
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).
alleges that on July 4, after the doctor was contacted about
Plaintiff's blood sugar level but did not respond for an
hour, Plaintiff asked to see Defendant Burd, who
“apparently was not there.” This is not a
constitutional violation. Defendant Burd is ...