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.

Calloway v. Winnfield Correctional Center

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

May 1, 2019

DWAYNE L. CALLOWAY, Plaintiff
v.
WINNFIELD CORRECTIONAL CENTER, 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 Amended Complaint (Doc. 13) filed by pro se Plaintiff Dwayne L. Calloway (“Calloway”) (#715365). Calloway is an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Corrections, incarcerated at the Winn Correctional Center (“WCC”) in Winnfield, Louisiana. Calloway complains that he was denied adequate medical care and subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Constitution.

         Because Calloway cannot establish he suffered a constitutional violation regarding his medical care, or that he meets the physical injury requirement to recover compensatory damages with respect to his transport to the infirmary, Calloway's Complaint and Amended Complaint (Docs. 1, 13) should be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

         I. Background

         Calloway alleges that he slipped and fell in water in front of the shower at WCC, where there was no warning sign. Calloway was transported to the hospital. (Doc. 1, p. 3). After Calloway returned to WCC, he was administered ibuprofen. Calloway alleges that he was provided with a wheelchair for two weeks and then given crutches. (Doc. 13, p. 3). Calloway complains that his medication was discontinued after three weeks. (Doc. 13, p. 3).

         Calloway acknowledges that he “only put in a few sick calls” for pain, but he claims that “the infirmary medical staff is automatically suppose [sic] to make sure” that Calloway had follow-up appointments. (Doc. 13, p. 3).

         In his Amended Complaint, Calloway also complains that he was transported from the shower floor to the infirmary on a stretcher wearing boxer shorts and a coat when it was around 40 degrees outside. (Doc. 13, p. 3).

         II. Law and Analysis

         A. Calloway's Complaint is subject to screening under §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.

         Calloway is a prisoner who has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 7). As a prisoner seeking redress from an officer or employee of a governmental entity, Calloway's Complaint is subject to preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Because he is proceeding in forma pauperis, Calloway's Complaint is also subject to screening under § 1915(e)(2). Both § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b) provide 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, 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. Calloway cannot show deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.

         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 ...


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.