91 F.3d 1023 (7th Cir. 1996), 96-1074, Abdul-Wadood v. Nathan

Docket Nº:96-1074, 96-1296 and 96-1527.
Citation:91 F.3d 1023
Party Name:Lokmar Y. ABDUL-WADOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sylvester NATHAN, Defendant-Appellee. Lokmar Y. ABDUL-WADOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Conrado DELROSARIO and Adriane Jaggers, Defendants-Appellees. Lokmar Y. ABDUL-WADOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Todd KAMLEITER, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Case Date:August 02, 1996
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1023

91 F.3d 1023 (7th Cir. 1996)

Lokmar Y. ABDUL-WADOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Sylvester NATHAN, Defendant-Appellee.

Lokmar Y. ABDUL-WADOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Conrado DELROSARIO and Adriane Jaggers, Defendants-Appellees.

Lokmar Y. ABDUL-WADOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Todd KAMLEITER, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 96-1074, 96-1296 and 96-1527.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

August 2, 1996

Submitted July 18, 1996.

Page 1024

Lokmar Yazid Abdul-Wadood (submitted), Westville, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Pamela Carter, Robert L. Collins, Office of the Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before BAUER, EASTERBROOK, and DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judges.

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.

Lokmar Abdul-Wadood, a prisoner of Indiana, is a frequent filer. Last month we affirmed several cases he was pursuing, concluding that two of the appeals were frivolous and counted toward the three "strikes" allowed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub.L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (Apr. 26, 1996). After losing three cases for one of the enumerated grounds, which include frivolousness, a plaintiff must prepay the docket fee for filing a complaint or taking an appeal, unless he is "under imminent danger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), added by § 804(d) of the new statute. Abdul-Wadood had at least five other cases on appeal at the time we warned him about the consequences of frivolous litigation. He did not withdraw any of the five appeals. Today we affirm in three more, all of them frivolous. The allowed strikes now are exhausted.

In appeal No. 96-1074, Abdul-Wadood contends that Sylvester Nathan, a prison physician, violated the cruel and unusual punishments clause of the eighth amendment by administering inappropriate treatment for an attack of sickle cell anemia, an incurable condition from which Abdul-Wadood suffers. When Abdul-Wadood complained of pain, Dr. Nathan first gave him ibuprofen; pain continued, and Dr. Nathan prescribed increasingly strong pain medicine, culminating in Tylenol No. 4, which brought relief. The prison hospital also administered intravenous fluids. Given the strict standards of Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994), and Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976), the district court...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP