PARKER v. BUREAU OF PRISONS HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION
ENTRY Discussing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings - In summary, Parker's claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment shall proceed against Dr. Trueblood. Dr. Trueblood sha ll be substituted for Bureau of Prisons Health Services Division as the defendant. All other claims are dismissed. The clerk is directed to issue a single summons to Dr. Trueblood, the United States attorney for this district and the Attorney General of the United States at Washington, D.C., pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1). The Marshal for this District or his Deputy shall serve the summons, together with a copy of the complaint and a copy of this Entry, on the defendant at the expense of the United States (SEE ENTRY). Copies distributed pursuant to distribution list. Signed by Judge Larry J. McKinney on 8/22/2017.(DW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
TERRY ALTON PARKER,
BUREAU OF PRISONS HEALTH
Entry Discussing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
Plaintiff Terry Parker, an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution in Terre
Haute, Indiana (“FCI Terre Haute”), brings this action alleging that he has received
inadequate medical care for his heart condition and associated pain.
I. Screening of the Complaint
Because Parker is a “prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), the complaint
is subject to the screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Pursuant to this
statute, “[a] complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim if the allegations,
taken as true, show that plaintiff is not entitled to relief.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199,
215 (2007). To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint “must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to 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) (quotations omitted). Pro se
complaints are construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Obriecht
v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 491 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008).
Parker alleges that he received inadequate medical care for his heart condition
while he was housed at the Marion Federal Prison Camp in Marion, Illinois (“Marion”),
and since he has been transferred to the FCI Terre Haute. He names as defendants the
Bureau of Prisons Health Services Division, et al. He states this case is brought under
the theory recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S.
388 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Based on the screening standard set forth above, Parker’s claims shall proceed
as follows: Parker’s claim that he has received inadequate medical care for his heart
condition and his pain while he has been confined at the FCI Terre Haute shall
proceed. The only individual Parker identifies who was responsible for this treatment is
Dr. Trueblood. Accordingly, this claim shall proceed pursuant to Bivens against Dr.
Trueblood as a claim of deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs in
violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Any claim against prison officials or medical personnel at Marion is severed from
the claims in this case. This is because joinder of defendants into one action is proper
only “if there is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative, any right to
relief in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all defendants
will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). Claims based on care received at Marion
would involve different defendants and different care than the care Parker received at
the FCI in Terre Haute. Accordingly, any claim based on care received at Marion is
dismissed without prejudice. If Parker wishes to pursue those claims, he must pursue
them in a separate lawsuit in the appropriate court.
Any claim pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act must be dismissed. The only
proper defendant in an action pursuant to the FTCA is the United States itself, see
Hughes v. United States, 701 F.2d 56, 58 (7th Cir. 1982), and the United States is not
included as a defendant in this case. See Myles v. United States, 416 F.3d 551, 552
(7th Cir. 2005) (noting that the composition and content of the amended complaint are
entirely the responsibility of the plaintiff, for Aeven pro se litigants are masters of their
own complaints and may choose who to sue-or not to sue@).
Any request for release from confinement must be dismissed. A writ of habeas
corpus is the exclusive remedy to challenge the fact or duration of confinement. See
Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 646 (2004) (“[D]amages are not an available habeas
remedy.”); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 554 (1974) (“[H]abeas corpus is not an
appropriate or available remedy for damages claims.”).
II. Further Proceedings
In summary, Parker’s claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment shall proceed against Dr. Trueblood. Dr.
Trueblood shall be substituted for Bureau of Prisons Health Services Division as
the defendant. All other claims are dismissed. If Parker believes he has asserted a
claim that has not been addressed in this Entry, he shall have through September 19,
2017, to notify the Court.
The clerk is directed to issue a single summons to Dr. Trueblood, the United
States attorney for this district and the Attorney General of the United States at
Washington, D.C., pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1). The Marshal for this District or his
Deputy shall serve the summons, together with a copy of the complaint and a copy of
this Entry, on the defendant at the expense of the United States.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Terry Alton Parker
Terre Haute FCI
P.O. Box 33
Terre Haute, IN 47808
United States Marshal
LARRY J. McKINNEY, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
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?