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.

Outlaw v. Rachal

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

January 10, 2018

MICHAEL OUTLAW
v.
WARDEN RACHAL, ET AL

          JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          KAREN L. HAYES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Pro se complainant Michael Outlaw, an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Corrections, filed the instant civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 on October 4, 2017. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the David Wade Correctional Center (DWCC). He names the following as defendants: Warden Rachal, Paula Millwee, Dr. Fuller, Dr. Hearn, Unknown Nurse and Unknown Medical Staff. He seeks compensatory damage and injunctive relief. 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 a DOC inmate incarcerated at the DWCC who alleges he has sustained a back injury due to the living conditions in extended lock down.

         He complains that when the nursing staff responds to his sick calls in extended lock down, they bring no equipment, there is no examination outside of the cell, only screening from behind bars.

         On August 29, 2016, after more than a year of sick complaints and grievances filed, plaintiff was examined by Dr. Fuller. After explaining to Dr. Fuller that his pain was a “current off and on situation, ” Dr. Fuller told him that he had normal back pain like everybody else and sent him back to his cell. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Fuller falsely documented his medical records to state that he instructed plaintiff to exercised and take Tylenol, although he concedes that he cannot prove this.

         After he was seen by Dr. Fuller, he continued to make sick calls regarding his back pain and on January 8, 2017, he was referred to Dr. Hearn who found his “examination results negative.” [Rec. Doc. 1, p. 5] She prescribed anti-inflammatory medication for 30 days. However, she denied his request for an x-ray and pet scan. Plaintiff asserts that she showed “poor attitude” concerning his medical needs and did not schedule a follow-up regarding his medication or health status. Id. at p. 6.

         Days after seeing Dr. Hearn, he made several sick calls. He has since been seen by different nurses on different occasions. He complains that they have become “tired” of his sick call complaints. Id. Medical has made no new recommendations for new solutions or other options regarding his pain. He contends that it is “evident to see medical is going by the least inexpensive way in treating me for back pain and are deliberated indifference to inmate serious medical needs. By repeating the same recommendation that doesn't relieve pain and suffering at least temporarily.” Id.

         He asks this Court to order an x-ray and cat scan, to refer him to an outside hospital, to be re-evaluated by an outside psychologist, to be “free of such conditions that violates the U.S Constitution Eighth Amendment, ” that medical at DWCC improve in referring inmates to the doctor and improve on follow-ups, as well as compensatory damages for his physical, mental and emotional pain.

         Law and Analysis

         1. Screening

         Plaintiff is a prisoner seeking redress from an officer or employee of a governmental entity; therefore his complaint is subject to preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578');">156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (5th Cir.1998) (per curiam). Section 1915A(b) provides 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,19');">490 U.S. 319, 325 (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 ...


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.