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.

Ricky Charles Voclain LA. v. River Bend Detention Center

United States District Court, Western District of Louisiana, Monroe Division

November 3, 2014

RICKY CHARLES VOCLAIN LA. DOC # 310868
v.
RIVER BEND DETENTION CENTER, ET AL

Ricky Charles Voclain, Plaintiff, Pro se, Plain Dealing, LA.

KAREN L. HAYES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

KAREN L. HAYES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pro se plaintiff Ricky Charles Voclain, proceeding in forma pauperis, filed the instant civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 16, 2104. Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of Louisiana's Department of Corrections. He is incarcerated at the Bossier Medium Correctional Center; however, he complains that he was denied adequate medical care while he was imprisoned at the River Bend Detention Center (RBDC). He sued RBDC, its " head doctor" and " medical staff, " the East Carroll Parish Sheriff's Department and various " unknown defendants" and prayed for an investigation of the RBDC medical department and $100, 000 in damages. 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. For the following reasons it is recommended that the complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous and for failing to state a claim for which relief may be granted.

Statement of the Case

Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the DOC. He was transferred from the Terrebonne Parish Criminal Justice Complex to the RBDC on February 19, 2014. Plaintiff claims that he has previously been diagnosed as schizophrenic. Prior to his transfer to RBDC, he was receiving the anti-psychotic medication " Prolicktum." [1] Upon his arrival at RBDC he was examined by a physician who obtained a history of plaintiff's mental health issues. Plaintiff advised that he was previously diagnosed as bipolar, schizophrenic, manic depressive and psychotic sleeping disorder. He advised this physician that his former physician, prior to the date he was incarcerated, prescribed " Risperdal" for the bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, " Paxsual" for manic depression, and " Vistareal" for the sleep disorder.[2] He also told the physician that when he was incarcerated in TPCJC, the physician at that facility discontinued the Risperdal® and Vistaril® because inmates abuse such drugs and instead prescribed Prolixin® . Nevertheless, the physician at RBDC discontinued the Prolixin® and substituted Elavil® .[3]

According to plaintiff, within 48 to 72 hours after not receiving the preferred medication he began to hear voices and experience hallucinations. In addition he experienced bad headaches and cold sweats. Sometime between February 19 and the end of February plaintiff submitted a request to see the physician again. He was seen by a nurse and complained to her that he was no longer receiving medication for his paranoid schizophrenia; the nurse checked his records and advised him that the physician had prescribed Elavil® .

Thereafter plaintiff submitted grievances which were either ignored or denied. On June 2, 2014 he was transferred from RBDC to his present place of confinement. It is unclear whether or not he is receiving the requested medication at this time.

Law and Analysis

1. Screening

Plaintiff is a prisoner who has been permitted to proceed in forma pauperis . As a prisoner seeking redress from an officer or employee of a governmental entity, his complaint is subject to preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (5th Cir.1998) (per curiam). Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis, his complaint is also subject to screening under § 1915(e)(2). Both § 1915(e)(2) (B) and § 1915A(b) provide for sua sponte dismissal of the complaint, or any portion thereof, if the Court finds it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

A complaint is frivolous when it " lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law when it is " based on an indisputably meritless legal theory." Id. at 327. A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it fails to plead " enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell A. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

2. Medical Care

Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the LDOC. He complains that the physician, health care professionals, and others at RBDC violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment when they discontinued his prescription for the drug Prolixin® and ...


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.