Nolan v. Patterson
| Decision Date | 29 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:19-CV-935-CHB |
| Parties | TIMOTHY NOLAN, Plaintiff, v. DAWN PATTERSON, RN et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky |
This matter is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff Timothy Nolan's pro se complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons that follow, the Court will allow some claims to continue, dismiss other claims, and allow Plaintiff to file an amended complaint regarding his claim of denied medical treatment.
Plaintiff is a state inmate currently incarcerated at Lee Adjustment Center (LAC). He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging his detention at Luther Luckett Correctional Complex (LLCC). [R. 1] He sues the following Defendants in their individual and official capacities: 1) Dawn Patterson, RN, employed by WellPath; 2) WellPath, "Formerly known as Correct Care Solutions"; 3) Rick Richards, "ARNP," employed by WellPath; 4) LLCC Deputy Warden Laura Plappert; 5) LLCC Classification Chairman Paul Lembke; 6) Kentucky Department of Corrections (KDOC) Program Administrator Jennifer Tracy; 7) LLCC Unit Administrator Jennifer Bowersock; 8) LLCC Warden Scott Jordan; 9) KDOC Commissioner Kathleen Kenney; 10) LLCC Chaplain Casey Heilman; 11) LLCC Unit Director Emily Schofield; and 12) LLCC Specialty Coordinator Dagon Moon. [Id. at p. 1] In the complaint, Plaintiff divides his claims into seven "Cause of Action" sections. As his "First Cause of Action" [id. at pp. 3-5], Plaintiff alleges that he is "approximately seventy-two (72) years of age" and "has a history of having a lot of medical problems, including cancer, pituitary tumor, obesity, MI with stents, hypertension, tinnitus, etc..." [Id. at p. 3 (ellipsis in original)]. He reports that he has made requests for various referrals and tests based on numerous medical conditions and that those requests have been denied. [Id.] Specifically, he reports seeking referrals to an endocrinologist, an orthopedic surgeon, a dermatologist, a cardiologist, and a urologist and further reports requesting an MRI, screening for cancer, a colonoscopy, and a C-pap. [Id. at pp. 3-5] He reports that he went to see [Id. at p. 5] Plaintiff reports filing a grievance, to which Defendant Patterson responded "that there was too many issues, this will need to go back to the grievance office." [Id.] He indicates that he appealed the grievance denials and that Defendant Moon and non-Defendant Cookie Crews stated that he [Id. (ellipsis in original)]. He claims that Defendant Moon "is unfamiliar with the grievance policy that he is in charge of processing." [Id.]
As his "Second Cause of Action" [id. at pp. 5-6], Plaintiff asserts violations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1978 (RA) and of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for being denied "Honor Dorm Housing." He alleges that his disability does not allow him to work and that because of this he is being denied meritorious housing. [Id. at p. 6] He brings these claims against Defendants Schofield, Lembke, and Jordan. [Id. at pp. 5-6] Regarding his "Third Cause of Action" [id. at pp. 6-7], Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Plappert, Lembke, Bowersock, and Tracy violated his Eighth Amendment rights. He claims that Defendants Lembke and Bowersock classified him on September 30, 2019, at which time they placed "an override 1 for nature and severity of offense . . . making him medium custody and preventing [him] from being placed in a lower level security institution." [Id. at p. 6] He reports appealing the classification to Defendant Plappert and requesting minimum custody, which she denied. [Id.] He also reports appealing that denial to Defendant Tracy, who also denied his request. [Id.] As relief he seeks to be "properly classified and housed at a minimum security facility or halfway house" [id. at p. 12], alleging that LLCC has been one of the "most dangerous prison[s]" in Kentucky. [Id. at p. 7]
Plaintiff also claims that he "reported that he was getting threaten [sic] and extorted by another inmate to U/A Jennifer Bowersock and she refused to do anything to protect him" and "allowed this to continue and when Plaintiff was forced to give the inmate his canteen, he received a disciplinary report that was ultimately dismissed." [Id.] Plaintiff "asserts that being assaulted, Extorted, and threatened with a Unit Administrator refusing to help protect you meets the requirements [of] an atypical and significant hardship." [Id.] He also alleges that this amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. [Id.]
With respect to the "Fourth Cause of Action" [id. at pp. 7-8], Plaintiff alleges that on April 4, 2019, he attempted to mail his reclassification appeal to Defendant Warden Jordan through "legal mail so it could be documented the appeal was timely filed." [Id. at p. 7] He claims that Defendant Moon, the grievance coordinator, "said he was informed by Warden Scott Jordan that no mail is to be sent to him or any mail to any Official within the institution thru legal mail." [Id.] Plaintiff alleges that not giving an inmate a way to verify time sensitive mail violates due process. [Id. at p. 8] He reports filing a grievance that was denied by Defendants Deputy Warden Plappert, Warden Jordan, and Commissioner Kenney. [Id.]
The "Fifth Cause of Action" [id. at p. 9] is against Defendant Chaplin Heilman for denying Plaintiff's request to participate in the "Inside Outside Dad's program."1 Plaintiff claims that this denial "is effectively preventing him from receiving sentencing credits that other inmates are allowed to earn as the program gives an inmate 90-days off his sentence upon completion." [Id.] Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Chaplin Heilman violated "his right to earn sentencing credits2 as well as his right to participate in programs." [Id.]
As the "Sixth Cause of Action" [id. at pp. 9-11], Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Moon, Plappert, Jordan, and Kenney "are denying Plaintiff and all inmates at LLCC the right to the Courts by not allow Inmates to research their own issues using Lexis Nexis." [Id. at p. 9] Plaintiff claims that Defendant Moon advises that "Lexis Nexis is an internet Database that requires a security clearance to use," which Plaintiff maintains is incorrect as other facilities allow inmates to conduct their own research without help from anyone else. [Id. at p. 10] Plaintiff asserts that "[i]nmates have a right to confidential access to Lexis Nexis and this confidentiality agreement inmate legal Aides sign does not provide that." [Id. at p. 11]
Finally, as the "Seventh Cause of Action" [id. at p. 11], Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Bowersock and WellPath "breached their duty owed to Plaintiff." Regarding Defendant Bowersock, he alleges that in refusing to take measures to correct the extortion/threats mentioned above, she breached her duty to protect him. [Id.] With respect to Defendant WellPath, Plaintiff asserts that WellPath "is responsible for their employees actions and by their employees failing to follow Doctors orders waives any immunity claim" and that WellPath "violated [it]s duty to provide [medical] care to Plaintiff leading to his declining health." [Id.]
As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and various forms of injunctive relief. [Id. at p. 12]
Because Plaintiff is a prisoner seeking relief against governmental entities, officers, and/or employees, the trial court must review the complaint and dismiss the complaint, or any portion thereof, 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 28 U.S.C. § 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)). Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557).
A case, or portion thereof, becomes moot when events occur which resolve the controversy underlying it. Burke v. Barnes, 479 U.S. 361, 363 (1987). Generally, an inmate's release from prison or transfer to another prison moots his request for injunctive...
To continue reading
Request your trial