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.

James Edward Wood v. John Doe

November 14, 2011

JAMES EDWARD WOOD, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOHN DOE, STEVE DOE, AND CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable B. Lynn Winmill Chief U. S. District Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC), currently housed at the Idaho State Correctional Institution (ISCI). The Clerk of Court conditionally filed Plaintiffs' Complaint as a result of his status as an inmate and his in forma pauperis request. (Dkts. 1, 6). The Court reviews Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. 3) to determine whether it should be summarily dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A. Having reviewed the record, and otherwise being fully informed, the Court enters the following Order requiring that Plaintiff amend his Complaint.

BACKGROUND

According to the Complaint, on May 13, 2009, Plaintiff suffered a seizure while walking laps outdoors. Complaint, 4 (Dkt. 3). Plaintiff was immediately sent to St. Alphonsus for an MRI. Id. at 5. The following day, Plaintiff was diagnosed with a large brain tumor. Id. at 5. On May 17, 2009, Plaintiff underwent emergency brain surgery in an attempt to save his life. Id. at 5-7. Immediately following the surgery, when he regained consciousness, Plaintiff found that the right side of his body was paralyzed. Id. at 6. It is unclear from the Complaint how long the paralysis lasted or if it is permanent. Since he claims that he was made to stand prior to leaving the hospital, it appears that he regained at least partial use of his right side. Id. at 10-11. It was later revealed that the tumor was stage-two cancerous. Id. at 6. Plaintiff states he suffered one seizure while recovering from the surgery. Id. at 6.

Ten days after the surgery, on May 27, two IDOC officers, identified only as John Doe and Steve Doe, took Plaintiff back to ISCI over the objections of Plaintiff's duty nurse. Id. at 8. Plaintiff states that the nurse told the Doe defendants that Plaintiff had not been discharged by his doctor, and that more testing was necessary before Plaintiff could be discharged. Nonetheless, they took Plaintiff back to ISCI along with a bag of his medications for use during Plaintiff's further recovery at the prison.

Upon returning to ISCI, Plaintiff alleges that while removing his restraints, Steve Doe made Plaintiff stand and put all of his weight on his right leg, which was still suffering the effects of the surgery. Id. at 10. This caused Plaintiff to fall and become injured, hitting his head, on the concrete floor. Id. While waiting for a wheelchair to take him to the infirmary, Plaintiff had another seizure, with the implication that it was a result of the fall. Id. at 11.

Once Plaintiff made it to the infirmary, he requested his pain medication from Dr. Yurosek, which was supposed to have been brought to there by John Doe. Id. at 10-11. Instead, Plaintiff claims that CMS Nurse Kathy offered Plaintiff two ibuprofen. Id. at 13. When he again asked for his prescribed medication, Dr. Yurosek stated to Plaintiff that the hospital did not prescribe any medications for Plaintiff. Id. at 14. Later, Plaintiff states that Dr. Yurosek refused the medications because of CMS policy regarding narcotics. Id. at 15. Five days after requesting them, on June 1, 2009, Plaintiff is given his medications.*fn1 Id. at 16. During this time, Plaintiff claims to have suffered several painful and debilitating seizures. Id. at 15-16. Plaintiff also claims that when he reported these issues to the Health Services Administrator, Larry Hines, Hines not only ignored Plaintiff's concerns, but requested that Plaintiff keep the incidents confidential. Id. at 15.

Nearly two months later, on July 30, 2009, one day before Plaintiff was to begin his parole, the Director of Nursing, Jennifer Donaldson confiscated his anti-seizure medication. Id. at 18. The next day, when he requested the standard two week supply of his anti-seizure medication, Donaldson denied his request and provided him instead with a prescription for the medicine. Id. at 18-19. Plaintiff claims that he did not have the funds to fill the prescription, and as a result of Donaldson's confiscation of the medication and denial of "in-hand medication," Plaintiff "began having severe seizures right out the gate, my medical condition rapidly deteriorated to the point I was unable to care for myself because of [the] seizures...." Id.

Plaintiff makes claims of: (1) Deliberate indifference to medical conditions; (2) cruel and unusual punishment; (3) ignoring obvious medical conditions; and (4) failure to provide treatment for diagnosed medical conditions.

Plaintiff lists only John Doe, Steve Doe, and Correctional Medical Services as Defendants. However, he also refers to Dr. Yurosek, Nurse Kathy, Larry Hines, and Jennifer Donaldson as Defendants throughout the complaint.

LEGAL STANDARD

The Court is required to review inmate and in forma pauperis complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity or government employees to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A. The Court must dismiss a complaint or any portion thereof that states a claim that is frivolous or malicious, that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A.

Plaintiffs bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the civil rights statute. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege a violation of rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute proximately caused by conduct of a person acting under ...


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.