United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
HX. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is a Complaint and several Amended Complaints filed
under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal
Bureau of Narcotics by pro se Plaintiff Leonel
Marin-Torres (“Marin-Torres”) (#36048-086).
(Docs. 1, 14, 18, 25). Marin-Torres is an inmate in the
custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”), incarcerated at the United States
Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. Marin-Torres
complains that he was denied adequate medical care while
incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Pollock,
Marin-Torres fails to state a claim for a constitutional
violation regarding his medical care, his Complaint and
Amended Complaints (Docs. 1, 14, 18, 25) should be DENIED and
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
alleges that he suffers from hemorrhoids and was denied
hemorrhoid cream at USP-P. (Docs. 1, 18). According to his
Complaint, Marin-Torres filed an informal complaint (BP-8),
formal complaint (BP-9), regional appeal (BP-10), and central
office appeal (BP-11). (Docs. 1, 18). The only document
provided by Marin-Torres is a copy of the response to his
informal complaint. According to the informal response,
Marin-Torres was examined for complaints of hemorrhoids, but
no abnormalities were noted. (Doc. 1-2, p. 9). A few months
later, Marin-Torres was examined again for the same
complaint, and he refused a fecal occult blood screening.
(Doc. 1-2, p. 9).
Amended Complaint, Marin-Torres claims that he arrived at
USP-P with some foot cream in February 2017, but the
physician assistant at UPS-P would not prescribe the same
cream. (Doc. 25, p. 6).
also claims that a blood technician caused him pain when
drawing blood. (Doc. 25, p. 9).
Law and Analysis
Marin-Torres'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. 21). As a prisoner seeking redress from an
officer or employee of a governmental entity,
Marin-Torres'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,
Marin-Torres'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 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.
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).
Marin-Torres cannot show deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs.
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 ...