WHITE v. CORIZON HEALTH THE COMPANY et al

Filing 8

ENTRY Screening Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings. The clerk is designated to issue process to the defendants. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/28/2017 (dist made)(CBU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
DONYALL WHITE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORIZON HEALTH THE COMPANY,
LORETTA DAWSON,
WEXFORD HEALTH THE COMPANY,
WENDY E. KNIGHT,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:17-cv-03655-TWP-MPB

Entry Screening Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
Plaintiff Donyall White, an inmate at the Correctional Industrial Facility, brings this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law alleging that the defendants have failed to
ensure that he received proper treatment for his pain in his feet and his back.
I. Screening Standard
Because the plaintiff is a “prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), this Court has an
obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) to screen his complaint before service on the defendants.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. In determining whether the complaint states a claim, the Court applies
the same standard as when addressing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). See Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). To survive dismissal,
[the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
claim for relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Pro se complaints such as that filed by the plaintiff
are construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers. Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 491 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008).
II. Discussion
White alleges that the defendants have failed to treat his pain, particularly his need for
orthopedic inserts for his boots. White alleges that this failure is the result of negligence and
deliberate indifference on the part of each of the defendants.
Applying the screening standard to the factual allegations in the complaint, the following
claims shall proceed: White’s claim that Corizon employees failed to treat his condition shall
proceed as a negligence claim against Corizon; White’s claim that Corizon maintained a policy
or practice that resulted in the failure to treat him shall proceed as a claim that Corizon was
deliberately indifferent to White’s medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment; White’s
claims against Wendy Knight shall proceed as negligence and Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claims; White’s claims that Loretta Dawson failed to treat his condition shall
proceed as negligence and Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims; White’s claim that
Wexford employee Loretta Dawson failed to treat his condition shall proceed as a negligence
claim against Wexford. Any Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Wexford is
dismissed because White does not allege that this treatment was the result of a policy or practice
on the part of Wexford. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816 (7th Cir.
2009).
This summary of remaining claims includes all of the viable claims identified by the
Court. All other claims have been dismissed. If the plaintiff believes that additional claims were

alleged in the complaint, but not identified by the Court he shall have through January 19,
2018, in which to identify those claims.
IV. Duty to Update Address
The pro se plaintiff shall report any change of address within ten (10) days of any change.
The Court must be able to locate the plaintiff to communicate with him. If the plaintiff fails to
keep the Court informed of his or her current address, the action may be subject to dismissal for
failure to comply with Court orders and failure to prosecute.
V. Service of Process
The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to the
defendants in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint,
applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver
of Service of Summons), and this Entry.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 12/28/2017

Distribution:
Donyall White
980181
CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
5124 West Reformatory Road
PENDLETON, IN 46064
Electronic Service to the following employee at the Correctional Industrial Facility: Wendy
Knight
Corizon Health
103 Powell Court
Brentwood, TN 37027

Wexford Health Sources
501 Holiday Drive
Foster Plaza Four
Pittsburgh, PA 15220
Loretta Dawson
MEDICAL EMPLOYEE
CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIAL FACILITY
5124 West Reformatory Road
PENDLETON, IN 46064
Courtesy Copies to:
Jeb Crandall
8470 Allison Pointe Blvd #420
Indianapolis, IN 46250
Douglass Bitner
334 North Senate Ave
Indianapolis, IN 46204