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.

Henderson v. Hedgemon

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division

January 26, 2015

ALVIN HENDERSON, LA. DOC # 181186
v.
JOHNNY HEDGEMON

SECTION P

Alvin Henderson, Plaintiff, Pro se, Lake Providence, 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 Alvin Henderson, proceeding in forma pauperis, filed the instant civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 20, 2014. Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of Louisiana's Department of Corrections (DOC). He is incarcerated at the River Bend Detention Center (RBDC) and he complains that he was denied prompt and appropriate medical care by the defendants, Warden Johnny Hedgemon and Nurse Lena Middlebrook. He seeks compensatory damages and " to replace the medical staff with competent personnel..." 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 in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A .

Statement of the Case

Plaintiff, a DOC inmate, put in a sick call request on April 7, 2014, complaining of a toothache. His name was added to the list of inmates awaiting dental care. On May 1, 2014 he inquired about the status of his sick call request and was told that he would be examined by the dentist when the dentist comes to the facility. On some unspecified date plaintiff submitted a second sick call request, this time complaining of a swollen throat. He was examined by a nurse, presumably Nurse Middlebrook, who diagnosed the problem as an abscessed tooth. Plaintiff insisted that the problem was in his throat, but the nurse disagreed.

Thereafter, on unspecified dates, plaintiff was twice escorted to the medical department by Captain Russell. The nurse, presumably Nurse Middlebrook, again concluded that the pain was caused by an abscessed tooth.

On June 26, 2014, plaintiff was examined by a physician. Antibiotics were prescribed; however, after some unspecified time, plaintiff claims that the antibiotics offered no relief.

On July 6, 2014, plaintiff " started spitting up blood from [his] throat" and he was immediately sent to the Lake Providence Hospital and from there to the LSU Medical Center in Shreveport where surgery was performed. According to plaintiff a fist-sized abscess on his throat was removed during emergency surgery.

On July 1, 2014, plaintiff submitted a first stage grievance complaining that he had submitted a sick call request concerning his toothache approximately 2 months ago. He claimed that he had not yet received treatment and the infection was moving through his glands. He claimed that his repeated requests for emergency treatment were denied. When he did not receive a response, he submitted an offender request form to Warden Hedgeman complaining about the institution's failure to respond to his July 1 grievance.

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 ...


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.