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.

Mann v. Williams

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

May 14, 2019

SEAN NABORS MANN PLAINTIFF
v.
STEVE WILLIAMS et al. DEFENDANTS

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Thomas B. Russell, Senior Judge.

         This is a pro se civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. 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 allow Plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint.

         I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

         Plaintiff Sean Nabors Mann is a convicted prisoner incarcerated at the Fulton County Detention Center (FCDC). He names as Defendants FCDC Jailer Steve Williams, FCDC Assistant Jailer Jeff Johnson, FCDC Deputy Elizabeth Easley, Dr. Chris Weatherspoon, and “Nurse Reginia.” Plaintiff sues these Defendants in their official capacities only.

         Plaintiff alleges that “his life has been put in jeopardy due to improper procedure in treatment of diabetics and improper handling of diabetic insulin, including untrained officers checking sugar levels and distributing insulin and not meeting nutritional needs and the required calorie intake to meet diabetic needs.” He further states that “by allowing improper procedure, [Defendants] have put Plaintiff's life and health in jeopardy.”

         Plaintiff specifically alleges that Defendant Jailer Williams has failed to provide proper training to his officers in regard to the proper treatment of diabetics and handling of diabetic insulin. He also alleges that Defendant Dr. Weatherspoon has refused to see Plaintiff regarding “proper treatment and the handling of diabetic insulin, ” even though Plaintiff has followed proper procedure and submitted medial requests to see him. Plaintiff states that “according to jail staff [Dr.] Weatherspoon is responsible for medical decisions and diabetic procedure.”

         Plaintiff also alleges that on December 3, 2018, he requested to speak to “whoever was over medical the way blood sugar is checked and insulin is given out.” Plaintiff states that Defendant Deputy Easley answered as follows: “The deputies is to check your blood sugar before the nurse gets here in the morning so all the nurse has to do is give your insulin. . . . The nurse checks your blood if the deputy did not check it.” Plaintiff then states that it is sometimes deputies who actually “give out” insulin. Plaintiff claims that “by being the Deputy over medical and ignoring Plaintiff's request and grievances, [Defendant] Easley is putting Plaintiff's life and health at risk.”

         Plaintiff states that the “procedure for checking diabetics sugar levels is officer come (not nurse) at 4 am to check sugar level. Then we're fed breakfast between 5:00 am and 5:30 am. Insulin is not brought until between 6 am to 7 am. A diabetic is suppose to receive insulin before they eat, not after.”

         Plaintiff also claims that Defendant “‘Nurse Reginia' has drawn up wrong insulin and given it to Plaintiff and put Plaintiff's life at risk (she drew up fast acting insulin instead of the 70/30 that Plaintiff required).” Plaintiff also states that, on more than occasion, he has knocked on his window due to low blood sugar and been told that someone would check his blood sugar or notify the nurse, but “nobody came.”

         Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Jailer Williams has ignored grievances and grievance appeals filed by Plaintiff “in regards to medical and diabetic procedure.” Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Deputy Johnson has failed to follow the jail's grievance procedure “by not submitting ‘all' grievance appeal to Head Jailer.” Finally, Plaintiff states that when he files grievances regarding the procedures FCDC follows to treat diabetics, “the medical staff says it policy of the jail, and officers of jail says Plaintiff needs to address medical. Everybody keeps pointing fingers at each other.”

         As relief for these alleged violations of his constitutional rights, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.

         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, 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] 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.