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.

Marin-Torres v. USP Pollock

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

September 3, 2019

LEONEL MARIN-TORRES, Plaintiff
v.
USP POLLOCK, ET AL., Defendants

          DEE D. DRELL JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          JOSEPH HX. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Before the Court is a Complaint and several Amended Complaints filed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics[1] 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, Louisiana (“USP-P”).

         Because 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.

         I. Background

         Marin-Torres 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).

         In an 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).

         Marin-Torres also claims that a blood technician caused him pain when drawing blood. (Doc. 25, p. 9).

         II. Law and Analysis

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

         Marin-Torres 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.

         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. Marin-Torres 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 ‚Äúrefused 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.