United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division
BOBBY EARL KEYS, FED. REG. No. 03344-043.,
MIKE FRAMER, ET AL
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KATHLEEN KAY, Magistrate Judge.
Before the court is a civil rights complaint filed in forma pauperis by pro se plaintiff Bobby Earl Keys. This matter arises under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). In Bivens, the Supreme Court recognized that certain circumstances may give rise to a private cause of action against federal officials that is comparable to the statutory cause of action permitted against state officials by 42 USC § 1983.
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institute in Oakdale, Louisiana (hereafter "FCIO"). He complains of events that occurred at FCIO and during his incarceration in the Stone County Jail System in Stone County, Mississippi (hereafter "SCJ"). As defendants, plaintiff names Stone County Sheriff Mike Framer and Bureau of Prisons (hereafter "BOP") Director Charles E. Samuels, Jr.
This matter has been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the standing orders of the Court.
Plaintiff states that his civil rights were violated by denial of adequate medical care at both SCJ and FCIO. Plaintiff states that he was incarcerated at SCJ from October 20, 2011, until June 28, 2012. Doc. 1, p. 6. He claims that he suffered from depression prior to arriving at SCJ but was otherwise healthy. Id. On May 13, 2012, he had a psychotic episode where he alleges he heard voices, hallucinated, and had suicidal thoughts. Id. He was examined by a SCJ nurse who determined that he was a threat to himself and others and he was placed in "mental-health strip cell status." Id. The nurse attempted to treat plaintiff's mental condition by increasing his dosage of anti-depressants. Id.
On May 18, 2012, plaintiff states that he collapsed onto the floor of the mental-health strip cell unit and severely injured his head. Id. He also claims that despite witnessing the incident, Stone County employees failed to render aid and left him unconscious on the floor. Id. Upon regaining consciousness the next day, plaintiff claims he was nauseated; had a severe headache and a swollen head; had a loud squealing noise in his head; and had difficulty standing and balancing. Id. He states that he requested medical care but was ignored. Id. at 7. Given his numerous injuries, plaintiff accused several officers of beating and kicking him in the head while he was passed out. Id. at 6. He later learned that he fell as a result of the increased dosages of the antipsychotic medications. Id.
Plaintiff was examined by a nurse on May 23, 2012 who arranged for him to see a doctor. Id. at 7. Plaintiff was examined by Dr. Burn on June 7, 2012. Plaintiff states that he was diagnosed with "a brain injury... consistent with a traumatic blow to the head." Id. Plaintiff was treated with Tylenol and returned to his cell. Id. Sometime later, he collapsed again and struck his head on the floor. Id. at 8. SCJ Officer Breland contacted Warden Brewer, who helped plaintiff get back in his cell bunk. Id.
Plaintiff claims that he was denied adequate medical care during the entire period of time that he was housed at SCJ. Id. His confinement at SCJ ended on June 21, 2012, when he was placed en route to FCIO. Id. at 9. Plaintiff arrived at FCIO on July 12, 2012, and began to experience blackouts. Id. He complains that the medical staff at FCIO only treated him with Ibuprofen and Imitrex injections. Id. Plaintiff states that adjustments to his medications in March 2013, helped to decrease the blackouts but did not help his dizziness, balance problems, memory loss or headaches. Id.
As a result of the above, plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and injunctive relief. Id. at 16; Doc. 7, p. 6.
Law and Analysis
Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §1915. Under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B), a district court is directed to dismiss an action if the court determines that the action is frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii); Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d 1022, 1025 (5th Cir.1998). A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Gonzalez v Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016, 1019 (5th Cir.1998) (citing Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir.1997)). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it is clear the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Doe v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 153 F.3d 211, 215 (5th Cir.1998). When determining whether a complaint is frivolous or fails ...