Scott v. Nwaobasi et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint, pursuant to the service agreement the Court maintains with Corizon, as to defendants Dr. Unknown Nwaobasi and Nurse Alona Boi ling. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants Dr. Unknown Nwaobasi and Nurse Alona Boiling shall reply to the amended complaint within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 10/31/16. (KKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JAMES M. SCOTT,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. UNKNOWN NWAOBASI, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:16CV966 JAR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon review of plaintiff James M. Scott’s amended
complaint. The Court will order the Clerk of Court to issue process on the amended complaint as
to plaintiff’s claims against defendants Dr. Unknown Nwaobasi and Nurse Alona Boiling.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss a complaint filed in forma
pauperis if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. An action is
frivolous if it Alacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.@ Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
328 (1989); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). An action is malicious if it is
undertaken for the purpose of harassing the named defendants and not for the purpose of
vindicating a cognizable right. Spencer v. Rhodes, 656 F. Supp. 458, 461-63 (E.D. N.C. 1987),
aff=d 826 F.2d 1059 (4th Cir. 1987). A complaint fails to state a claim if it does not plead
Aenough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.@ Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

To determine whether an action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
the Court must engage in a two-step inquiry. First, the Court must identify the allegations in the
complaint that are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937,
1950-51 (2009). These include “legal conclusions” and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of
a cause of action [that are] supported by mere conclusory statements.” Id. at 1949. Second, the
Court must determine whether the complaint states a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 1950-51.
This is a “context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense.” Id. at 1950. The plaintiff is required to plead facts that show
more than the “mere possibility of misconduct.”

Id.

The Court must review the factual

allegations in the complaint “to determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.” Id.
at 1951. When faced with alternative explanations for the alleged misconduct, the Court may
exercise its judgment in determining whether plaintiff’s proffered conclusion is the most
plausible or whether it is more likely that no misconduct occurred. Id. at 1950, 1951-52.
The Amended Complaint
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs when they failed to diagnose his diabetes.
Specifically, plaintiff alleges that he was seen by Dr. Nwaobasi in October of 2014 with
complaints of stomach pain, headache, and hypertension. Dr. Nwaobasi ordered testing, which
was administered by Nurse Boiling.

Plaintiff alleges that one of the tests performed was

intended to screen for diabetes, and that it yielded a positive result with an A1C of nine percent.
Plaintiff alleges that neither Nwaobasi nor Boiling checked the test results or notified plaintiff
that he was diabetic, and his condition was therefore left untreated for ten months. Plaintiff
alleges that, during that ten-month period, he suffered hypertension, debilitating headaches, and

2

stomach pain. Plaintiff alleges that his diabetes was finally diagnosed when another doctor took
over for Nwaobasi, at which time his A1C had reached 13 percent. Plaintiff was moved to the
infirmary, and placed on high volumes of insulin four to five times daily. Plaintiff seeks
$150,000.00 in damages from each defendant. The Court has carefully reviewed the Amended
Complaint, and has determined that it survives review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause process to issue
upon the complaint, pursuant to the service agreement the Court maintains with Corizon, as to
defendants Dr. Unknown Nwaobasi and Nurse Alona Boiling.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants Dr. Unknown Nwaobasi and Nurse Alona
Boiling shall reply to the amended complaint within the time provided by the applicable
provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Dated this 31st day of October, 2016.

JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3