BROWN v. MOATS et al

Filing 16

ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT, DISMISSING DEFICIENT CLAIMS, DENYING MOTIONS TO STAY PROCEEDINGS, AND GRANTING MOTION FOR OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND COMPLAINT - Mr. Brown's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against Dr. Wilson, Dr. Lukens, Dr. Trueblood, Dr. Auxier, and Dr. Patel SHALL PROCEED. These are the only viable claims identified in the complaint. All other claims are DISMISSED. Mr. Brown's motions to stay proceedings, dkt. 4 , dkt. 13 , and dkt. 14 , are DENIED. Mr. Brow n's motion for opportunity to amend his complaint, dkt. 3 , is GRANTED to the extent that Mr. Brown may amend his complaint once as a matter of course from now until 21 days after the defendants have filed an answer or motion to dismiss. The c lerk is directed to terminate Scott Moats and Mark D. Jackson as defendants on the docket. The clerk is directed to issue process to defendants Dr. William E. Wilson, Dr. David Lukens, Dr. Elizabeth Trueblood, Dr. Donald Auxier, and Dr. Chiag Patel. The Marshal for this District or his Deputy shall serve the summons, together with a copy of the complaint, dkt. 1 , and a copy of this Order, on the defendants and on the officials designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(2), at the expense of the United States. SEE ORDER. Copies to plaintiff and USM. Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 11/17/2021. (KAA)

Case 2:21-cv-00240-JPH-MJD Document 16 Filed 11/17/21 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 67

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
RAYMOND DEAN BROWN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTT L. MOATS, et al.
Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-00240-JPH-MJD

ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT, DISMISSING DEFICIENT CLAIMS,
DENYING MOTIONS TO STAY PROCEEDINGS, AND
GRANTING MOTION FOR OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND COMPLAINT
Raymond Dean Brown filed this complaint alleging that the defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his atrial fibrillation, causing him to suffer a stroke. The complaint is now subject to
screening.
I.

Screening Standard

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss the complaint, or any portion of
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 Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2017). For the
complaint to survive dismissal, it "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).

1

Case 2:21-cv-00240-JPH-MJD Document 16 Filed 11/17/21 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 68

II.

The Complaint

The complaint names seven defendants: (1) Dr. Scott Moats; (2) Dr. Mark D. Jackson;
(3) Dr. William E. Wilson; (4) Dr. David Lukens; (5) Dr. Elizabeth Trueblood; (6) Dr. Donald
Auxier; and (7) Dr. Chiag Patel.
In the complaint, Mr. Brown alleges that he was in custody at FCI Pekin, a federal prison
in Pekin, Illinois, from 2008 through 2015. In August 2010, he suffered from gastrointestinal
bleeding and was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation—a rapid and irregular heartbeat. Mr. Brown
and Dr. Moats discussed possible surgery to treat the atrial fibrillation, and Dr. Moats referred him
to cardiologist Dr. Jackson. Dr. Jackson recommended that Mr. Brown see an electrophysiologist.
Dr. Moats made the request, and it was approved in April 2012. But Dr. Moats later cancelled the
electrophysiologist appointment and never rescheduled it. Mr. Brown told Dr. Jackson, who did
nothing. Dr. Jackson and Dr. Moats also failed to provide prescription anticoagulation medication.
In October 2015, Mr. Brown suffered a stroke and was transferred to FCI Terre Haute, a federal
prison in Terre Haute, Indiana. After the transfer, Dr. Jackson and Dr. Moats were no longer
involved in his treatment.
In Terre Haute, another doctor recommended that Mr. Brown have a surgical consult with
an electrophysiologist. The appointment was scheduled for December 2015, but Dr. Wilson
cancelled it. Yet another doctor then recommended an electrophysiologist consultation, and
Mr. Brown underwent unsuccessful surgery in September 2017. The electrophysiologist
recommended another surgery in nine months. Mr. Brown had cardiac surgery on
December 29, 2018. Another electrophysiologist consultation was scheduled for February 2019,
but Dr. Wilson cancelled it and never rescheduled.

2

Case 2:21-cv-00240-JPH-MJD Document 16 Filed 11/17/21 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 69

In December 2018, Mr. Brown began experiencing vision loss. Dr. Auxier examined him
and diagnosed possible ischemic strokes. The vision loss worsened, and optometrist Dr. Patel
recommended cataract surgery. In preparation for surgery, on June 25, 2019, Dr. Patel stopped
Mr. Brown's anticoagulation medication. Dr. Wilson, Dr. Trueblood, and Dr. Lukens did not
override that decision. After cataract surgery on July 1, 2019, Mr. Brown reported additional vision
loss to Dr. Wilson, Dr. Trueblood, Dr. Auxier, and Dr. Lukens. Mr. Brown repeatedly notified
Dr. Patel about the vision loss, and on July 12, 2019, Dr. Patel performed a field of vision test.
Based on the results, Dr. Patel recommended hospitalization. In February 2020, Mr. Brown had
successful surgery that resolved his atrial fibrillation.
Mr. Brown alleges that each defendant was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
needs. He seeks $4 million in damages.
III.

Screening

Because Mr. Brown sues federal officials in their individual capacities for alleged
constitutional violations, his claims are necessarily brought under the doctrine of Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
A.

Claims to be dismissed

Mr. Brown's claims against Dr. Moats and Dr. Jackson are DISMISSED as frivolous
because they are untimely based on the face of the complaint. Timeliness is an affirmative defense
usually to be raised in a motion to dismiss, but a complaint may be dismissed sua sponte if "the
existence of a valid affirmative defense is so plain from the face of the complaint that the suit can
be regarded as frivolous." Muhammad–Ali v. Final Call, Inc., 832 F.3d 755, 763 (7th Cir. 2016)
(internal quotation omitted)); see also Koch v. Gregory, 536 F. App'x 659, 660 (7th Cir. 2013)
(when complaint's allegations plainly show it is untimely, dismissal under § 1915A is appropriate).

3

Case 2:21-cv-00240-JPH-MJD Document 16 Filed 11/17/21 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 70

"The statute of limitations for Bivens claims against federal officers is the same as for
[42 U.S.C.] § 1983 actions against state officers: both periods are borrowed from the state in which
the alleged injury occurred." Cesal, 851 F.3d at 721−22. "The pertinent Indiana Statute of
limitations is two years." Devbrow v. Kalu, 705 F.3d 765, 767 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Ind. Code
§34–11–2–4).
Here, Dr. Moats and Dr. Jackson treated Mr. Brown at FCI Pekin until October 2015, when
he was transferred to FCI Terre Haute. After that, they were no longer involved in his medical
care, so any claims against them accrued for statute of limitations purposes in October 2015, and
the limitation period expired in October 2017. See Ajala v. Univ. of Wisc. Hosp. and Clinics,
836 F. App'x 447, 453−54 (7th Cir. 2020) (statute of limitations for deliberate indifference claim
began running when plaintiff was transferred to another prison); Chambers v. Cross, 788 F. App'x
1032, 1033−34 (7th Cir. 2019) (same).
Mr. Brown argues that Dr. Moats and Dr. Jackson's actions were part of a continuing
violation by Federal Bureau of Prisons medical staff. Dkt. 1 at 5. But a defendant may only be held
liable for deliberate indifference based on his own acts and omissions. Rasho v. Elyea, 856 F.3d
469, 478 (7th Cir. 2017). Once Mr. Brown was transferred away from FCI Pekin, "any course of
deliberate indifference by [Dr. Moats and Dr. Jackson] was complete, as they were no longer
personally responsible for his treatment decisions." Chambers, 788 F. App'x at 1034 (cleaned up)
(rejecting "ongoing violation" argument and holding that statute of limitations began to run when
plaintiff was transferred from one federal prison to another).

4

Case 2:21-cv-00240-JPH-MJD Document 16 Filed 11/17/21 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 71

B.

Claims to proceed

Mr. Brown's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against Dr. Wilson,
Dr. Lukens, Dr. Trueblood, Dr. Auxier, and Dr. Patel SHALL PROCEED. These are the only
viable claims identified in the complaint. All other claims are DISMISSED.
IV.

Motions to Stay and Motion for Opportunity to Amend

Mr. Brown's motions to stay proceedings, dkt. [4], dkt. [13], and dkt. [14], are DENIED.
Mr. Brown's complaint has been screened, and the Court will assist him with service of process.
After the defendants are served, they must file responsive pleadings or motions. There is nothing
for Mr. Brown to do at this time.
Mr. Brown's motion for opportunity to amend his complaint, dkt. [3], is GRANTED to the
extent that Mr. Brown may amend his complaint once as a matter of course from now until 21 days
after the defendants have filed an answer or motion to dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B).
After that, Mr. Brown may file an amended complaint "only with the opposing party's written
consent or the court's leave." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
V.

Directing Issuance of Service and Process

Mr. Brown's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against Dr. Wilson,
Dr. Lukens, Dr. Trueblood, Dr. Auxier, and Dr. Patel SHALL PROCEED. His claims against
Dr. Moats and Dr. Jackson—and any other claims not identified—are DISMISSED.
The clerk is directed to terminate Scott Moats and Mark D. Jackson as defendants on the
docket.
The clerk is directed to issue process to defendants Dr. William E. Wilson, Dr. David
Lukens, Dr. Elizabeth Trueblood, Dr. Donald Auxier, and Dr. Chiag Patel. Because Mr. Brown is
proceeding under the theory recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bur. of

5

Case 2:21-cv-00240-JPH-MJD Document 16 Filed 11/17/21 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 72

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), personal service is required. Robinson v. Turner, 15 F.3d 82, 84
(7th Cir. 1994). The Marshal for this District or his Deputy shall serve the summons, together with
a copy of the complaint, dkt. [1], and a copy of this Order, on the defendants and on the officials
designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(2), at the expense of the United States.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 11/17/2021

Distribution:
RAYMOND DEAN BROWN
06770-091
TERRE HAUTE - FCI
TERRE HAUTE FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P.O. BOX 33
TERRE HAUTE, IN 47808
United States Marshal
Southern District of Indiana
46 East Ohio Street
179 U.S. Courthouse
Indianapolis, IN 46204

6