LMIGGIO v. WEXFORD HEALTH et al

Filing 12

Entry Screening Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings - The clerk shall terminate Richard Brown, Brenda Hinton, and Karen Richards as defendants. The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to the defen dants 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 (SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 3/2/2018. Copies distributed pursuant to distribution list. (DW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
MICAH L’MINGGIO,
Plaintiff,
v.
WEXFORD HEALTH, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:17-cv-00571-WTL-DLP

Entry Screening Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings
Plaintiff Micah L’Minggio, an inmate at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
(WVCF), brings this action pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that he has received inadequate
medical care.
I. Screening Standard
Because L’Minggio 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
L’Minggio alleges that, while he has been housed at WVCF, he has complained regularly
of pain in his foot, believing this pain to be caused by a “broken screw.” The defendants have not
provided L’Minggio with adequate care, including a referral to a specialist, for this condition.
Based on the screening set forth above, L’Minggio’s claims shall proceed as follows: his
claims that he has not received treatment for his painful foot condition shall proceed against Dr.
Samuel Byrd, Dr. Carl Kuenzli, Dr. Mary Chavez, and Barbara Riggs as claims that these
defendants were deliberately indifferent to L’Minggio’s serious medical needs in violation of his
Eighth Amendment rights. The claims against Corizon Health and Wexford Health shall
proceed as claims that these defendants maintained a policy or practice that resulted in the
violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.
The claims against Richard Brown, Brenda Hinton, and Karen Richards are dismissed.
L’Miniggio alleges that, by preventing him from using the law library and not providing him
with forms, these defendants have denied him access to the courts. To prevail on an access-tocourts claim, a prisoner must “submit evidence that he suffered actual injury—i.e., that prison
officials interfered with his legal materials—and that the interference actually prejudiced him in
his pending litigation.” Devbrow v. Gallegos, 735 F.3d 584, 587 (7th Cir. 2013) (citations
omitted). L’Minggio makes no such claim here. The clerk shall terminate Richard Brown,
Brenda Hinton, and Karen Richards as defendants.

This summary of 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 March 30, 2018, in which
to identify those claims.
III. 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 current address, the action may be subject to dismissal for failure
to comply with Court orders and failure to prosecute.
IV. 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: 3/2/18

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

Distribution:
Micah L’Minggio
198566
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
Corizon Health
103 Powell Court
Brentwood, TN 37027
Wexford Health Sources
501 Holiday Drive
Foster Plaza Four
Pittsburgh, PA 15220

Dr. Mary Chavez
EMPLOYEE
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
6908 S. Old US Hwy 41
P.O. Box 1111
Carlisle, IN 47838
Barbara Riggs
EMPLOYEE
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
6908 S. Old US Hwy 41
P.O. Box 1111
Carlisle, IN 47838
Courtesy Copy to:

Dr. Samuel Byrd
EMPLOYEE
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
6908 S. Old US Hwy 41
P.O. Box 1111
Carlisle, IN 47838
Dr. Carl Kuenzli
EMPLOYEE
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
6908 S. Old US Hwy 41
P.O. Box 1111
Carlisle, IN 47838

Jeb Crandall
BLEEKE DILLON CRANDALL
ATTORNEYS
8470 Allison Pointe Boulevard
Suite 420
Indianapolis, IN 46250
Douglass R. Bitner
KATZ KORIN CUNNINGHAM, P.C.
The Emelie Building
334 North Senate Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46204