United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT
STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER, Magistrate Judge.
Before the court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by defendants Asst. Warden Stephanie LaMartiniere and Dr. Randy Lavespere. Record document number 20. The motion is opposed.
Pro se plaintiff, an inmate confined at Louisiana State Penitentiary, Angola, Louisiana, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dr. Jason Collins,  Asst. Warden Stephanie Lamartiniere and Dr. Randy Lavespere. Plaintiff alleged that he was denied adequate medical treatment and Dr. Collins retaliated against him for filing administrative grievances complaining about the denial of adequate medical treatment, all in violation of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff sought monetary damages and injunctive relief in the form of examination by a doctor qualified to treat his medical condition, an MRI or bone scan, and physical therapy.
I. Factual Allegations
Plaintiff alleged that for more than 10 years he has complained about severe shoulder and lower back pain. Plaintiff alleged that Dr. Collins, the prison's medical director, refused to have him scheduled to be examined by a doctor in retaliation for complaining that he received inadequate medical treatment.
Plaintiff alleged that he was notified several times that a doctor's appointment had been scheduled, but then several months elapsed without being examined. Plaintiff alleged that he was examined by a doctor only after his family members contacted prison officials concerning his health. Plaintiff alleged that after being examined, the doctor prescribed medication but conducted no further examination. Plaintiff alleged that he was told that there was nothing else that could be done, per Dr. Collins' orders.
Plaintiff alleged that he wrote letters to Dr. Collins and Asst. Medical Warden Lamartiniere requesting a medical duty status prohibiting him from being required to perform work in the agricultural fields. Plaintiff alleged that he received a medical duty status from Dr. Collins which contained several restrictions including no sports, no kitchen duty, no prison rodeo and no hobby craft. Plaintiff alleged that the limitations in the medical duty status failed to address his medical condition and was issued out of spite.
Plaintiff alleged that it took more than two years to be examined by a specialist for his lower back pain. Plaintiff alleged that he was prescribed medication but did not undergo further examination, again pursuant to orders issued by Dr. Collins.
In his supplemental complaint, the plaintiff alleged that he wrote a letter to medical personnel complaining about a skin lesion and was subsequently examined by Dr. Lavespere. Plaintiff alleged that during his examination he told Dr. Lavespere that he had additional medical complaints other than the skin lesion. Plaintiff alleged that Dr. Lavespere said, in an aggressive tone, that the examination was limited to the plaintiff's complaints of a skin lesion. Plaintiff alleged that he insisted on discussing his other medical complaints. Plaintiff alleged that Dr. Lavespere agreed to listen to his medical complaints regarding his diet and lower back and left knee pain. Plaintiff alleged that during the exchange he told Dr. Lavespere that he filed a suit regarding his medical treatment. Plaintiff alleged that he told Dr. Lavespere that he sought sick call regarding his medical complaints and Dr. Lavespere told him that his medical complaints were not recorded in his medical chart.
Plaintiff alleged that he subsequently sent a letter to Dr. Lavespere and Asst. Warden Lamartiniere requesting a modification in his medical duty status to restrict him from performing work in the agricultural fields.
II. Applicable Law and Analysis
A. Motion to Dismiss Standard
Stephanie Lamartiniere and Dr. Randy Lavespere moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P.
On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court "must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). The Supreme Court expounded upon the Twombly standard, explaining that "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, 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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955). "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. It follows that ...