United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CATHERINE D. PERRY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a prisoner, seeks leave to proceed in forma 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 $1.90, which is twenty percent
of his average monthly deposit. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b). Additionally, the Court will direct the Clerk to
serve defendants Corizon, Inc., and Dr. Charles Chastain with
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to dismiss a
complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. To state a claim for relief, 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, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009). A plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim
for relief, which is more than a “mere possibility of
misconduct.” Id. at 679. “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.”
Id. at 678. Determining whether a complaint states a
plausible claim for relief is a context-specific task that
requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense. Id. at 679.
reviewing a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the
Court accepts the well-pled facts as true. Furthermore, the
Court liberally construes the allegations.
brings this action against defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 alleging violations of his civil rights.
sues Corizon, Inc., Dr. Charles Chastain, Dr. Unknown Chein,
and an unknown medical device supplier. Plaintiff was
incarcerated at the Eastern Reception Diagnostic and
Correctional Center (“ERDCC”) in April 2014 when
a doctor determined he needed knee replacement surgery.
Plaintiff was transferred to an outside hospital for the
surgery. Dr. Chein performed the surgery on April 22, 2014.
After the surgery, he informed plaintiff that there were
complications during the surgery. Dr. Chein purportedly told
plaintiff, “The knee replacement did not fit well and
was forced into place. You are suffering excessive
claims that Dr. Chein told him that he needed to remain
hospitalized because of vascular damage, and he contacted
Corizon for authorization. Plaintiff asserts that Corizon
denied the request as a result of their policy requiring
inmates to return to prisons within twenty-four hours after
surgery. Plaintiff returned to ERDCC on April 24, 2014.
twenty-four hours of his arrival at ERDCC, plaintiff needed a
blood transfusion because of excessive bleeding. From April
24, 2014, through July 10, 2014, plaintiff bled excessively.
Dr. Chastain gave plaintiff several blood transfusions until
plaintiff was transferred to the Farmington Correctional
Center (“FCC”) on June 24, 2014. Dr. Chastain
allegedly told plaintiff that he was concerned about the
possibility of blood loss and infections. Plaintiff asserts
that Dr. Chastain told plaintiff that he wanted to return him
to the hospital but that his hands were tied by Corizon's
policies. Thus, Dr. Chastain continued to treat plaintiff at
ERDCC instead of transferring plaintiff to an outside
facility for treatment.
his arrival at FCC, plaintiff was diagnosed with anemia, a
high fever, and excessive blood loss. The staff physician at
FCC determined that plaintiff was in critical condition and
transferred him to a trauma and surgical intensive care
facility. Plaintiff underwent immediate emergency surgery on
his arrival. His surgeon diagnosed him with a staph
infection, severe vascular damage, excessive bleeding, and
anemia. The doctor told him he had a “botched knee
replacement” and subsequent neglect.
seeks compensatory damages in this matter.
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,