United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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.
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.
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).
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in this Court, the Order was revoked because Irby previously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
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).
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).
Law and Analysis
Irby's Complaint is subject to screening under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A.
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
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).