United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
DWAYNE L. CALLOWAY, Plaintiff
WINNFIELD CORRECTIONAL CENTER, ET AL., Defendants
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is a civil rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983
(Doc. 1) and Amended Complaint (Doc. 13) filed by pro se
Plaintiff Dwayne L. Calloway (âCallowayâ) (#715365). Calloway
is an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of
Corrections, incarcerated at the Winn Correctional Center
(âWCCâ) in Winnfield, Louisiana. Calloway complains that he
was denied adequate medical care and subjected to cruel and
unusual punishment in violation of the Constitution.
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.
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).
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).
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).
Law and Analysis
Calloway's Complaint is subject to screening under
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
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
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).
Calloway cannot show deliberate indifference to serious
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 ...