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.

Minion v. Doe

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

July 2, 2019

BRIAN MINION PLAINTIFF
v.
DR. JOHN DOE et al. DEFENDANTS

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Joseph H. McKinley Jr., Senior Judge

         This matter is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff Brian Minion's pro se complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons that follow, the Court will dismiss the instant action.

         I.

         Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee currently incarcerated in the Henderson County Detention Center. He brings suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding his prior incarceration in the Grayson County Detention Center (GCDC). As Defendants, he names Dr. John Doe and Nurse John Doe, GCDC healthcare providers, in their official capacities.

         According to the complaint, Plaintiff was housed at GCDC from June 29, 2017, until May 2018. He claims as follows:

I made a doctor appointment while I was at Marion County Jail “C.C.A.” before I went to [GCDC] to get a STD check up. I got ship to Grayson County on the day of my appointment and I told the nurse's of my issue of lower back problems and blood in my under wear three weeks of me being there. they put me on antibiotic and said that I had a bacteria infection. My issue occur the same way multiple time same issue blood in my urine and lower back pain and they perscribe me more antibiotic again. In May of 2018 I got sent to Lexington Federal Prison. Dr Adams did blood work on me and said I had a STD. then 6 weeks later I suffer Bell Palsy. from a infection I had for a year. that the Doctor & nurse's never cure me from, Dr. Adam at Lexington had to give me 2, 000 mg of antibiotic to cure me and I never seen blood in my urine or had lower back pain again. doctor at [GCDC] never notice it was a issue of me having the same medical issue of the same problem to go deeper to see why I'm having the same infections thinking that I was having sexual activity in the facility instead looking deeper into the problem. medical issue.

         As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

         II.

         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).

         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 trial 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.

         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)). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.' Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]' devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557).

         Although courts are to hold pro se pleadings “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, ” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), this duty to be less stringent “does not require us 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 courts “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.

         Plaintiff sues Defendants Dr. and Nurse John Does, whom he identifies as working at GCDC, in their official capacities only. “Official-capacity suits . . . ‘generally represent [] another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.'” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985) (quoting Monell v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.55 (1978)). Therefore, to the extent Defendants are employees of GCDC, the ...


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.