ROBERSON v. TALBOT et al
ENTRY - 12 Motion to Amend/Correct is granted. The clerk is directed to file the tendered attachment, dkt. 12-1, as plaintiff's first amended complaint. The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to def endants Dr. Paul Talbot, Wexford Health Sources, and Corizon Medical Services in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the amended complaint, applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry. See entry for details. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/10/2018. (Dr. Paul Talbot, Wexford Medical Services, and Corizon Medical Services) (MEJ)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
DR. PAUL TALBOT;
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES; and
CORIZON MEDICAL SERVICES,
Entry Granting Motion to Amend Complaint,
Screening Amended Complaint, and
Directing Issuance and Service of Process
I. Motion to Amend Complaint
Plaintiff Paul Roberson’s January 8, 2018, motion to amend his complaint, dkt. , is
granted. The clerk is directed to file the tendered attachment, dkt. 12-1, as plaintiff’s first
II. Screening of the Amended Complaint
The amended complaint is subject to screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Mr. Roberson contends that Dr. Paul Talbot, a medical doctor at Indiana’s Pendleton Correctional
Facility, was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs through a variety of conduct and
omissions. For example, Mr. Roberson asserts that Dr. Talbot has refused to perform needed
medical treatment, changed Mr. Roberson’s medications to save the medical contractor money,
misdiagnosed his chronic conditions, mistreated his heart condition, failed to properly respond to
medication allergies, ignored his pain, and falsified his medical records. These allegations are
sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Dr. Talbot.
Mr. Roberson also asserts that Dr. Talbot’s current and former employers, Wexford Health
Sources and Corizon Medical Services, respectively, were deliberately indifferent to his serious
medical needs when they knowingly and purposefully hired and retained Dr. Talbot to provide
medical services to him. He asserts these companies knew that Dr. Talbot would commit
malpractice and be deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs by discontinuing or replacing
medications, refusing to authorize proper treatments and procedures, and not properly treat him
and other inmates. Mr. Roberson’s Eighth Amendment claims against Wexford and Corizon shall
The amended complaint shall be the operative complaint.
III. Issuance and Service of Process
The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendants
Dr. Paul Talbot, Wexford Health Sources, and Corizon Medical Services in the manner specified
by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the amended complaint, applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit
and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this
IV. Obligation to Update Address
The Court must be able to communicate with pro se parties through the United States mail.
Plaintiff shall report any change of address to the Court, in writing, within ten days of any change.
The failure to keep the Court informed of a current mailing address may result in the dismissal of
this action for failure to comply with Court orders and failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Pendleton Correctional Facility
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
Dr. Paul Talbot
Pendleton Correctional Facility
4490 W Reformatory Rd
Pendleton, IN 46064
Wexford Medical Services
c/o Douglas P. Long, Registered Agent
500 N. Meridian, Suite 300
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Corizon Medical Services
3737 North Meridian
Indianapolis, IN 46208
Courtesy Copies to:
Douglass R. Bitner
Katz Korin Cunningham, P.C.
The Emelie Building
334 North Senate Avenue
Jeb Adam Crandall
Bleeke Dillon Crandall Attorneys
8470 Allison Pointe Boulevard
Indianapolis, IN 46250
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?