ADAMS v. CORIZON HEALTHCARE et al

Filing 4

Entry Denying In Forma Pauperis Status, Screening and Dismissing Certain Defendants and Claims, and Directing Plaintiff to Show Cause - Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. 2 , is denied as presented. Plaint iff's Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need shall proceed against Dr. Samuel Byrd, Nurse Reed, Dr. Martin, and Lt. Lundy. All other defendants are dismissed. The clerk is designated pursuant to F ed. R. Civ. P. 4(c) to issue process by United States mail to Dr. Samuel Byrd, Nurse Reed, Dr. Martin, and Lt. Lundy in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint filed on May 15, 2017 (dkt. 1), applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry. The clerk shall also send a courtesy copy to attorney Jeb Crandall (SEE ENTRY). Copies distributed pursuant to distribution list. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 5/17/2017. (DW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
TERRY T. ADAMS, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORIZON HEALTHCARE,
WEXFORD HEALTH,
SAMUEL BRYD Dr., MARTIN Dr.,
REED R.N., LUNDY Lt.,
IDOC Custody Staff,
Defendants.

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

No. 2:17-cv-00221-WTL-MJD

Entry Denying In Forma Pauperis Status,
Screening and Dismissing Certain Defendants and Claims, and
Directing Plaintiff to Show Cause
Plaintiff Terry T. Adams, Sr., initiated this action on May 15, 2017, pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court makes the following rulings.
I. In Forma Pauperis Status
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. [2], is denied as presented.
He shall have until June 19, 2017, in which renew his motion to proceed in forma pauperis by
attaching a copy of the transactions associated with his institution trust account for the six-month
period preceding the filing of this action on May 15, 2017. 42 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Otherwise,
plaintiff must pay the $400.00 filing fee.
II. Screening of the Complaint
A. Legal Standard
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss a complaint or any claim within
a complaint that “(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. To
satisfy the notice-pleading standard of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint
must provide a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,”
which is sufficient to provide the defendant with “fair notice” of the claim and its basis. Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (per curiam) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555 (2007) and quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). The purpose of this requirement is “to give the
defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)); see also
Wade v. Hopper, 993 F.2d 1246, 1249 (7th Cir. 1993) (noting that the main purpose of Rule 8 is
rooted in fair notice: a complaint “must be presented with intelligibility sufficient for a court or
opposing party to understand whether a valid claim is alleged and if so what it is.”) (internal
quotation omitted)). The complaint “‘must actually suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief,
by providing allegations that raise a right to relief above the speculative level.’” Windy City Metal
Fabricators & Supply, Inc. v. CIT Tech. Fin. Servs., 536 F.3d 663, 668 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting
Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1084 (7th Cir. 2008)).
Pro se complaints 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). Liberal
construction means that if the Court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on
which the party could prevail, it should do so.
B.

Analysis

Plaintiff contends he injured his bicep on August 21, 2015, and that he has seen but not
been adequately treated by Nurse Reed, Dr. Martin, and Dr. Samuel Byrd. He contends that despite
a severe injury and a surgery recommendation, he has not been scheduled for surgery, his pain has

not been adequately treated, and that these health providers have been deliberately indifferent to
his “serious medical situation.” He further contends that Lt. Lundy declined to assist him with
paperwork to obtain medical care, that Lt. Lundy could have demanded health care for him, and
that Lt. Lundy “had no desire to fill our additional forms for anyone.”
The complaint, liberally construed, states an Eighth Amendment claim as to Nurse Reed,
Dr. Martin, Dr. Samuel Byrd, and Lt. Lundy, and shall proceed as directed below. There are
no specific allegations made against Corizon Healthcare, Wexford Health, or I.D.O.C. Custody
Staff. Section 1983 liability cannot be premised on vicarious liability. Rodriguez v. Plymouth
Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2009). The claims against Corizon Healthcare, Wexford
Health, and I.D.O.C. Custody Staff are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).1
Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. Nothing in plaintiff’s complaint invokes any First Amendment issue, and
the specific allegations he makes concern deliberate indifference to his medical needs, which are
covered by plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim. Constitutional claims are
to be addressed under the most applicable provision. See Conyers v. Abitz, 416 F.3d 580, 586 (7th
Cir. 2005).
If plaintiff believes that additional claims or defendants were alleged in the complaint, but
not identified by the Court, he shall have through June 19, 2017, in which to identify those claims.

The complaint is not completely clear whether “I.D.O.C. Custody Staff” is intended as a
separate defendant or is simply Lt. Lundy’s position within the Indiana Department of Correction.
The Court dismisses “I.D.O.C. Custody Staff” to ensure the docket clearly reflects the proper
parties. The claim against Lt. Lundy shall proceed as noted.
1

III. Summary and Service of Process
Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need
shall proceed against Dr. Samuel Byrd, Nurse Reed, Dr. Martin, and Lt. Lundy. All other
defendants are dismissed.
The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c) to issue process by United States
mail to Dr. Samuel Byrd, Nurse Reed, Dr. Martin, and Lt. Lundy in the manner specified by Fed.
R. Civ. P. Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint filed on May 15, 2017 (dkt. 1),
applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver
of Service of Summons), and this Entry. The clerk shall also send a courtesy copy to attorney Jeb
Crandall.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________

Date: 5/17/17

Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Terry T. Adams, Sr.
927648
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility - Inmate Mail/Parcels
6908 S. Old US Hwy 41
P.O. Box 1111
Carlisle, IN 47838
Electronic Service to the Following Wabash Valley Correctional Employee:
Lt. Lundy
Dr. Samuel Byrd
c/o Corizon, LLC
9245 North Meridian Street, Suite 120
Indianapolis, IN 46260
Dr. Martin
c/o Corizon, LLC
9245 North Meridian Street, Suite 120
Indianapolis, IN 46260
Nurse Reed
c/o Corizon, LLC
9245 North Meridian Street, Suite 120
Indianapolis, IN 46260

Courtesy copy to:
Jeb Adam Crandall
Bleeke Dillon Crandall Attorneys
8470 Allison Pointe Blvd, Suite 420
Indianapolis, IN 46250