Melton v. Corizon Medical et al

Filing 24

OPINION AND ORDER denying 23 Motion to dismiss. Defendants must file an answer within 21 days of this Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 6/15/2017. (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
MYRIAH MELTON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:16-cv-182-FtM-29MRM

CORIZON MEDICAL, DR. SAFRON,
Charlotte Behavioral Health
Care,
and
FNU
MASAMI,
Charlotte Behavioral Health
Care,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon review of the motion
to dismiss (Doc. #23) filed on behalf of Defendants Corizon LLC,
Doctor

Andrew

Safron,

“Medical Defendants”).

and

Masami

Kolbenschlag

(collectively

Plaintiff did not file a response and his

time to do so has expired.

This case is ripe for review.
I.

Plaintiff Myriah Melton initiated this action proceeding pro
se by filing a Civil Rights Complaint Form (Doc. #1) while detained
at

the

Charlotte

County

Jail.

The

Complaint

identifies

the

Charlotte County Jail’s contracted provider for medical care,
Corizon LLC and its medical staff who allegedly failed to properly
screen Plaintiff and/or provide her previously prescribed mental
health medications to treat PTSD, OCD, ADHD, and bipolar/manic

depression conditions.

Complaint at 6-7.

Plaintiff alleges the

medical department’s failure to provide her with these medications
has impacted her mental health condition and contributed to her
being involved in an incident at the jail, which almost led to
criminal charges.

Id. at 6.

As relief, Plaintiff requests that

the Charlotte County Jail’s mental health screening process be
changed to require medical staff to follow the mental health
treatment

in

place

by

a

pre-trial

immediately preceding detention.

detainees

Id. at 7.

psychiatrist’s

Plaintiff explains

that the medical department’s failure to following her treatment
regime has cost her time and money.

Id.

II.
The Medical Defendants collectively move to dismiss and argue
that Plaintiff has not adequately invoked this Court’s subject
matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Motion at 1.

The Medical Defendants submit that Plaintiff has

based her claims on violations of the Florida Model Jail Standards
and not on any federal statutes, or the United States Constitution.
Id. at 3.

Therefore, the Medical Defendants argue that this Court

must dismiss the action.
III.
It is well established that a document filed pro se is “to be
liberally construed.”

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2014)

(citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).

- 2 -

Further, a

pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
Id.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(f) requires the Court to

construe all pleadings “to do substantial justice.”
The Complaint Form utilized by Plaintiff to initiate this
action is the standard form used by pro se pre-trial detainees and
prisoners to file actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Thus, the

instant federal civil is action is filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Further, the facts set forth in the Complaint state a plausible
Fourteenth/Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious
medical

condition

alleged

failure

claim
to

stemming

provide

from

mental

the

medical

health

Plaintiff’s numerous mental health conditions.

defendants

medications

for

See Estelle, 429

U.S. at 104-105 (“[D]eliberate indifference to serious medical
needs

to

prisoners

constitutes

the

unnecessary

and

wanton

infliction of pain . . . proscribed by the Eight Amendment,” and
this includes “indifference . . . manifested by prison doctors in
their response to the prisoner’s needs or by prison guards in
intentionally

denying

or

delaying

access

to

medical

care

or

intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed.”
(footnotes and internal quotation marks omitted).
this Court has jurisdiction.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:

- 3 -

Accordingly,

Defendants’

motion

to

dismiss

(Doc.

#23)

is

DENIED.

Defendants must file an answer within twenty-one (21) days.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this
of June, 2017.

SA: ftmp-1
Copies: All Parties of Record

- 4 -

15th

day