United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
JOSHA V. CONERLY, Plaintiff
W. S. McCAIN, ET AL., Defendants
H.L. Perez-Montes United States Magistrate Judge.
the Court is the civil rights complaint (42 U.S.C. §
1983) of pro se Plaintiff Josha V. Conerly
(“Conerly”) (#369759). Conerly has been granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 6).
Conerly is an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana
Department of Corrections, incarcerated at the Raymond
Laborde Correctional Center (“RLCC”) in
Cottonport, Louisiana. Conerly names as defendants W.S.
McCain, Dr. Casey McVea, Nurse Iris Harmason, Nursing
Director Sandra Sibley, and Secretary James LeBlanc. Conerly
complains that he was denied adequate medical care and was
subjected to retaliation.
alleges that he suffers from chronic back pain, for which he
was prescribed and administered gabapentin. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
Conerly submitted to a blood test at RLCC. The following
week, Dr. McVea discontinued the gabapentin. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
Conerly was informed that the medication was discontinued
because it was not detected in Conerly's urinalysis.
However, according to Conerly, he never submitted a urine
sample, only the blood sample. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
alleges he began to experience pain within hours of the
discontinuance of gabapentin. (Doc. 1, p. 7). Conerly
submitted an emergency sick call, as well as multiple
“formal requests” for “adequate medical
treatment by Dr. McVea over the course of the following year,
to no avail.” (Doc. 1, p. 7). Although Conerly alleges
he was deprived adequate medical care, within one month of
the discontinuance of gabapentin, Conerly was prescribed
Cymbalta. (Doc. 1, p. 8).
Instructions to Amend
to Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a
pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” The pleading standard that Rule 8 announces
does not require “detailed factual allegations, ”
but demands more than an “unadorned,
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(citations omitted). A pleading that offers “labels and
conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
must amend his complaint to allege deliberate indifference by
each Defendant. Prison officials violate the Eighth
Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual
punishment when they act with deliberate indifference to the
serious medical needs of prisoners. See Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, (1994); Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976). Deliberate indifference
“is an extremely high standard to meet.”
Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir.
2006) (citation omitted). An inmate must show that prison
personnel “refused to treat him, ignored his
complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly, or engaged
in any similar conduct that would clearly evidence a wanton
disregard for any serious medical needs.” Domino v.
Tex. Dep't Crim. J., 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir.
2001) (quoting Johnson v. Treen, 759 F.2d 1236, 1238
(5th Cir. 1985)).
must amend and state when he sought and was refused medical
treatment, as opposed to simply being provided an alternative
medication. Conerly should state each date he submitted a
proper sick call, whether he was examined each time, and what
treatment he received.
also alleges that Nurse Harmason rendered medical opinions in
the administrative remedy process, and “doctored”
Conerly's medical records. Conerly concludes that Nurse
Harmason acted in retaliation. To state a valid § 1983
claim for retaliation, “a prisoner must allege (1) a
specific constitutional right, (2) the defendant's intent
to retaliate against the prisoner for his or her exercise of
that right, (3) a retaliatory adverse act, and (4)
causation.” Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322,
324-25 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing McDonald v. Stewart,
132 F.3d 225, 231 (5th Cir. 1998)). An inmate must allege
more than his personal belief that he is the victim of
retaliation. See Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299,
310 (5th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). “The inmate
must produce direct evidence of motivation or, the more
probable scenario, ‘allege a chronology of events from
which retaliation may plausibly be inferred.'”
Jones, 188 F.3d at 325 (citations omitted). Conerly
must amend his complaint to state a plausible claim of
retaliation against Nurse Harmason. Conerly should also
identify what documents were “doctored” by Nurse
Harmason, and provide a copy of the altered documents.
Conerly provided a copy of the final denial of his
administrative remedy. Conerly shall also provide a copy of
the responses he received to his grievances at the lower
IS ORDERED that Conerly amend his complaint within
30 days of the filing of this Order to provide the
information outlined above, or dismissal of this action will
be recommended ...