United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Northern Division
MICHAEL A. MAHONE, Plaintiff,
CORIZON HEALTH, INC., et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOHN A. ROSS, District Judge.
Plaintiff, a prisoner, seeks leave to proceed in form.a pauperis in this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having reviewed plaintiff's financial information, the Court assesses a partial initial filing fee of $2.00, which is twenty percent of his average monthly deposit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed in form.a pauperis if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To state a claim for relief under § 1983, a complaint must plead more than "legal conclusions" and "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action [that are] supported by mere conclusory statements." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). A plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a "mere possibility of misconduct."
Plaintiff alleges that in September 2012 he was bitten by a brown recluse spider, which caused a large wound to appear on his leg. He says that the wound became infected. He claims that defendants Dr. Cabrera, Dr. Stamps, and Dr. Wardell treated his condition, although inadequately. Wardell tested his wound and told him that he had venous skin ulcers as a result of poor venous circulation, and he told him that his wound was not related to a spider bite.
Another doctor told plaintiff that his wound was serious and that his leg might have to have been amputated if it got worse. He was sent to an outside facility, where he was seen by defendant Dr. Strong, a wound care specialist, and Dr. Phillips, a vascular surgeon. He says that both doctors performed operations on his leg several times; Dr. Strong did three separate skin graft operations, and Dr. Phillips performed two surgeries on his veins to improve circulation. He claims that the skin grafts did not take. Plaintiff says that in the last three years, his wound has decreased in size but that he is still in pain and cannot walk without a device.
Plaintiff alleges that defendant Unknown Aarauberg, a Nurse Practitioner, provided him with "care" for some time. He claims that she stopped seeing him after he filed a grievance against her. However, he has not alleged that she refused to see him or that he has not been provided with care from other providers. He says he has been seen by defendant Cabrera.
Defendant claims that defendant Tammy Anderson denied his grievances. He claims that defendant Debra Bater, a nurse, incorrectly updated his medical chart. And he says that defendant Dr. Babich, Corizon's Medical Director in Jefferson City, never personally saw him.
Plaintiff alleges that all of the defendants in this case lied about his condition to cover up one another's mistakes.
Plaintiff filed a similar suit on February 6, 2014 against the Missouri Department of Corrections, Corizon Medical Services, Inc., Dr. Stamps, Dr. Archer, Dr. Wardell (incorrectly named "Wudell"), Lisa Spain, and Dana Jost. Mahone v. Missouri Dep't of Corrections, No. 4:14CV224 JAR (E.D. Mo.). Plaintiff alleged several facts that he has realleged in this case. He claimed that he was bitten by a spider in September 2012, which resulted in a painful wound. And he said that Drs. Wardell and Stamps provided him with inadequate care. He also claimed that Dr. Unknown at the Northeast Correctional Center did not give him adequate treatment. This would be Dr. Cabrera. The Court dismissed that action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) because it failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Many of the allegations in this complaint are duplicative of the allegations plaintiff brought in the 2014 case. The allegations that are repeated in this case are barred by res judicata. E.g., Cooper v. Delo, 997 F.2d 376, 377 (8th Cir. 1993) (§ 1915(e) dismissal has res judicata effect on future IFP petitions). These claims are plaintiffs allegations against defendants Cabrera, Stamps, and Wardell, insofar as they occurred before February 2014, and they must be dismissed
To state a claim for medical mistreatment, plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to indicate a deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Camberos v. Branstad, 73 F.3d 174, 175 (8th Cir. 1995). Allegations of mere negligence in giving or failing to supply medical treatment will not suffice. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. In order to show deliberate indifference, plaintiff must allege that he suffered objectively serious medical needs and that defendants actually knew of but deliberately disregarded those needs. Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1239 (8th Cir. 1997). In order to state a claim against Corizon, plaintiff must allege that there was a policy, custom or official action that caused an actionable injury. Sanders v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 984 F.2d 972, 95-76 (8th Cir. 1993).
Plaintiff's allegations against defendants do not rise to the level of deliberate indifference. Plaintiff alleges that all of the doctors in this case treated his wound. He only claims that their treatment efforts were ineffective. This sounds in negligence. Furthermore, he has not alleged that a policy of Corizon caused his injuries. As a result, ...