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.

Bartley v. Jenny Stewart Medical Center

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

June 19, 2019




         This is a pro se civil rights action brought by a convicted prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has granted Plaintiff Christopher Bartley 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 but allow others to proceed.


         Plaintiff is a convicted prisoner incarcerated at the Christian County Jail (CCJ). He names the following as Defendants in this action - the Jenny Stewart Medical Center; Dr. Michael Wong; CCJ Deputy Jailer Newby; and Advanced Correctional Healthcare (ACH) Dr. Matthew Johnson.

Plaintiff makes the following allegations:
On November 9, 2018, I was taken by ambulance to Jenny Stewart Medical Center . . . due to an accident received while on work release from the [CCJ] . . . . After Dr. Wong did my cat scan and x rays he proceeded to discuss a medical issue that has nothing to do with the accident to Deputy Jailer Newby. I believe my rights were violated when the Dr. discussed my medical information and showed my x-ray/cat scan results to a prison guard who has no medical training or need to know (HIPPA ACT).
When I was released from the hospital on 11/9/18 and returned to the jail they were upset about the incident and Dr. Matthew Johnson (ACH) retaliated by locking me down and making me sleep on the floor which lasted around [18] days in general population. I believe Dr. Johnson violated my rights by having me sleep on the floor where this was a medical issue I should have been provided a bottom bunk furthermore as a state inmate the county has an obligation to keep a state prisoner 6” off the ground in a medical cell and not in general population.
While doing pill call Dep. Jailer Newby came to the window and called me by my last name to get my meds. When I did not respond fast enough, because I was in pain and on the floor, he said “Let's go Old Rib Neck” which that comment stems from what Dr. Wong showed Dep. Newby on my cat scan/x-ray results. After Dep. Newby made that comment I was shamed each morning when the inmates would call me dick neck, rib neck, get your pills. Deputy Newby violated my rights when he made comments about my medical issues in front of a roomful of inmates.
As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages.


         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 pro se plaintiff, [and] would also transform the district court from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).

         III. ANALYSIS

         A. Defendant Dr. ...

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.