DUPREE v. CARAWAY et al
Filing
7
Entry Discussing Amended Complaint, Dismissing Insufficient Claims, and Directing Further Proceedings - Plaintiff John Dupree ("Mr. Dupree"), an inmate at the United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, alleges that his constituti onal rights are being violated because the defendants have refused to properly treat his serious medical needs. Any claim against defendant Physician's Assistant Cox is dismissed. Any claims against defendants Nurse Dobbins and X-Ray Technicia n Abriani are dismissed. No partial final judgment shall issue as to the claims dismissed in this Entry. Mr. Dupree's Eighth Amendment claims of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need shall proceed against six defendants: 1) Direc tor Health Services Administrator Andrew Rupska; 2) Nurse Daniels; 3) Dr. Standard; 4) Paramedic Drummey; 5) Lab Technician Sanduski; and 6) Physician's Assistant Mata. The clerk shall update the docket accordingly. The clerk is designated, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2), to issue process to the six defendants. (See Entry.) Copies distributed pursuant to distribution list. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/7/2014.(RSF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
JOHN DUPREE,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
vs.
ANDREW RUPSKA, et al.
Defendants.
Case No. 2:14-cv-0092-JMS-WGH
Entry Discussing Amended Complaint, Dismissing Insufficient Claims,
and Directing Further Proceedings
I. Background
Plaintiff John Dupree (“Mr. Dupree”), an inmate at the United States Penitentiary in
Terre Haute, Indiana, alleges that his constitutional rights are being violated because the
defendants have refused to properly treat his serious medical needs. He brings his claims under
the theory set forth in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Bivens
“authorizes the filing of constitutional tort suits against federal officers in much the same way
that 42 U.S.C. §1983 authorizes such suits against state officers. . . .” King v. Federal Bureau of
Prisons, 415 F.3d 634, 636 (7th Cir. 2005). Mr. Dupree seeks compensatory and punitive
damages and preliminary injunctive relief.
In his amended complaint, Mr. Dupree has named nine defendants: 1) Director Health
Services Administrator Andrew Rupska; 2) Nurse Daniels; 3) Dr. Standard; 4) Nurse Dobbins; 5)
Paramedic Drummey; 6) Physician’s Assistant Cox; 7) Lab Technician Sanduski; 8) X-Ray
Technician Abriani; and 9) Physician’s Assistant Mata.
The amended complaint is subject to the screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
This statute directs that the Court dismiss a complaint or any claim within a complaint which
“(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2)
seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id.
II. Screening
A. Dismissed Claims
Any claim against defendant Physician’s Assistant Cox is dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted because Cox is not mentioned at all in the
complaint.
Any claims against defendants Nurse Dobbins and X-Ray Technician Abriani are
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because Mr. Dupree
alleges no misconduct or omissions on their part sufficient to support a claim of deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need.
No partial final judgment shall issue as to the claims dismissed in this Entry.
B. Claims That Will Proceed
Mr. Dupree’s Eighth Amendment claims of deliberate indifference to a serious medical
need shall proceed against six defendants: 1) Director Health Services Administrator Andrew
Rupska; 2) Nurse Daniels; 3) Dr. Standard; 4) Paramedic Drummey; 5) Lab Technician
Sanduski; and 6) Physician’s Assistant Mata. The clerk shall update the docket accordingly.
III. Service of Process
The clerk is designated, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2), to issue process to the six
defendants: 1) Director Health Services Administrator Andrew Rupska; 2) Nurse Daniels; 3) Dr.
Standard; 4) Paramedic Drummey; 5) Lab Technician Sanduski; and 6) Physician’s Assistant
Mata. Process shall consist of a summons. Because the plaintiff is proceeding under the theory
recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 (1971), personal service is required. Robinson v. Turner, 15 F.3d 82 (7th Cir. 1994). The
Marshal for this District or his Deputy shall serve the summons, together with a copy of the
amended complaint, filed on April 24, 2014 (docket 6), and a copy of this Entry, on the
defendants and on the officials designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(2), at the expense of
the United States.
IV.
Mr. Dupree seeks a preliminary injunction in the form of being quickly transported to a
hospital because his medical conditions are endangering his life.
The defendants shall have twenty-one (21) days from the date they appear in the action
in which to file a single response to Mr. Dupree’s request for preliminary injunctive relief. No
extensions should be anticipated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
05/07/2014
Date: __________________
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
NOTE TO CLERK: PROCESSING THIS DOCUMENT REQUIRES ACTIONS IN ADDITION TO DOCKETING AND DISTRIBUTION.
Distribution:
John Dupree
28615-004
Terre Haute USP
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P. O. Box 33
Terre Haute, IN 47808
United States Marshal
46 East Ohio Street
179 U.S. Courthouse
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Director Health Services Administrator Andrew Rupska
Nurse Daniels
Dr. Standard
Paramedic Drummey
Lab Technician Sanduski
Physician’s Assistant Mata
all at:
Terre Haute USP
4700 Bureau Road South
Terre Haute, IN 47802
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?