United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Northern Division
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff's
complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Upon review, the
Court finds that some of the defendants must be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
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 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for denial of
medical care. Before he was incarcerated, plaintiff was shot
in the face by a deputy sheriff for Jasper County. The wound
primarily affected his jaw, and he underwent facial
reconstructive surgery. The surgeon mounted an
“ephemeral steel plate” in his left mandible.
Subsequently, another surgeon told plaintiff he would need a
bone graft to replace the plate because of a one-inch gap in
the mandible, which was caused by missing bone from the
was convicted in 2011, and he was subsequently incarcerated
at the Crossroads Correctional Center. While there, he filed
numerous requests for medical care because the nonunion of
the steel plate with his mandible was causing severe pain.
The medical staff there refused to treat him. And his
caseworker told him that the Missouri Department of
Corrections and Corizon, Inc. (“Corizon”), were
not required to treat any injuries he suffered
was transferred to the Northeastern Correctional Center in
March 13, 2013. Upon his arrival, he requested surgery for
the non-union and his pain. Defendant Dr. Cabrera refused to
provide him with any treatment. As a result, his left
mandible re-fractured in September 2014.
Cabrera then ordered an X-ray of his left mandible. He did
not, however, prescribe pain medication. The X-ray showed
that the plate holding his mandible together had become
disconnected. It was reiterated to plaintiff that Corizon was
not responsible for treating pre-incarceration injuries and
that the needed surgery was too expensive.
saw a specialist in February 2015, who said plaintiff needed
an emergency surgery to place a bone graft in his jaw. No
surgery was performed. Plaintiff was sent to see Defendant
Ernest Jackson, a dentist for defendant Jackson Institutional
Dental Services, about a month later. Jackson ordered more
X-rays, regardless of the fact that more than five X-rays had
already been taken, including a “panorex full 3-D x-ray
procedure in January 2015 . . .” Jackson had
plaintiff's previous X-rays before the appointment.
August 2015, Corizon approved the recommended surgery, during
which, a skin graft was placed inside his mouth. After the
surgery, plaintiff suffered severe nerve damage, loss of bone
and muscle, and infections in his jaw.
informed Dr. Cabrera and Jackson that the skin graft was not
healing, and as a result, he was suffering severe pain and
could not eat or sleep. Cabrera gave him an antibiotic that
did not cure the infection.
wrote letters to Defendants Tammy Anderson, William Jones,