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.

Irby v. Leblanc

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

February 27, 2019

RONALD IRBY, Plaintiff
v.
JAMES LEBLANC, ET AL., Defendants

          DEE D. DRELL JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          JOSEPH H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Before the Court is a civil rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and a Motion to Remand (Doc. 4) filed by pro se Plaintiff Ronald Irby (“Irby”) (#583538). Irby is an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Corrections, incarcerated at the Raymond Laborde Correctional Center (“RLCC”) in Cottonport, Louisiana. Irby complains that he was denied proper medical care.

         Because Irby's case was not removed to this Court by Defendants, his Motion to Remand (Doc. 4) should be DENIED. Because his § 1983 claims are prescribed, his Complaint (Doc. 1) should be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

         I. Background

         Irby filed a civil rights Complaint (Doc. 1) regarding medical care received at RLCC from 2015-2016. Irby also presented these claims in a petition filed in Louisiana's 12th Judicial District Court, Avoyelles Parish. (Doc. 4-1, pp. 2-9). Irby did not pay the initial portion of the filing fee required by the state court pursuant to Louisiana's law regarding proceedings in forma pauperis. (Doc. 4-1, pp. 15-16). The state case has been stayed due to Irby's failure to pay the deposit. (Doc. 4-1, p. 37).

         Although Irby was initially granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this Court, the Order was revoked because Irby previously filed three civil actions that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim for which relief could be granted, and because Irby did not allege that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury, as required by § 1915(g). (Doc. 8). Thereafter, Irby paid the full filing fee.

         Irby alleges that he began seeking medical attention for a heart arrhythmia at RLCC in January 2015. (Doc. 1-2, p. 3). Because no issues were detected on an EKG, the doctor at RLCC referred Irby to a cardiologist in Shreveport. (Doc. 1-2, p. 3). The cardiologist recommended extended heart rate monitoring using one of two monitoring devices. (Doc. 1-2, p. 3). The DOC denied the request for monitoring devices. (Doc. 1-2, p. 3).

         In November 2016, an EKG detected atrial fibrillation. (Doc. 1-2, p. 4). Irby reported nose bleeds and inquired about his Coumadin dosage. (Doc. 1-2, p. 5). Irby then began to experience facial swelling. Irby alleges that the physician ordered intravenous antibiotics without determining the cause of the swelling or whether there was an infection. (Doc. 1-2, p. 6). Finally, in December 2016, the AVCC physician ordered that Irby be transported to the hospital. Irby was diagnosed with a facial hematoma due to Coumadin toxicity with probable secondary infection, atrial fibrillation with Coumadin toxicity, and hypertension. (Doc. 1-4, pp. 49-50).

         II. Law and Analysis

         A. Irby's Complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

         As a prisoner seeking redress from an officer or employee of a governmental entity, Irby's Complaint (Doc. 1) is subject to preliminary screening under § 1915A. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam); Rosborough v. Mgmt. and Training Corp., 350 F.3d 459, 461 (5th Cir. 2003) (holding that prison management corporations and their employees are state actors under § 1983). Section 1915A(b) provides for sua sponte dismissal of a 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 (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 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).

         B. Irby's ...


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.