United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
C. HAMILTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court upon review of the complaint filed
by plaintiff Louis Sean Bodway, an inmate at the St. Louis
County Justice Center. For the reasons explained below,
defendants Julia Childress, Ms. Jane Doe, and John Doe will
be severed from this action, and the claims against them will
be dismissed. In addition, plaintiff's claims against
Susan Hastings and Jane Doe Bella will be dismissed.
initiated this action on October 20, 2017 by filing a civil
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Susan
Hastings, M.D., Jane Doe Bella, M.D., Julia Childress, Jane
Doe, and John Doe. He expressly stated that he intended to
sue all defendants in an individual capacity only. He sought
and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and the
Court conducted initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
initial review, the Court noted that plaintiff alleged claims
against some defendants based upon events that occurred in
2017, and additional claims against other defendants based
upon unrelated events that occurred in 2014. Recognizing that
leave to amend should be freely given when justice so
requires, Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), the Court gave plaintiff the
opportunity to submit an amended complaint, clearly
explaining his options under Rules 18 and 20 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. (Docket No. 6/filed December 11,
2017). The Court also clearly explained that plaintiff was
required to allege how each named defendant was directly
involved in and personally responsible for violating his
constitutional rights, and also that if he wished to name
“Doe” defendants, he was required to allege
sufficient facts so they could be identified following
reasonable discovery. The Court also waived the initial
partial filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4).
response, plaintiff filed a document titled
“Acknowledgement and Objection to Order and Memo of
12/11/17, ” stating that he would not file an amended
complaint. (Docket No. 7). Plaintiff interpreted the
Court's order as telling him that he “did [his]
§ 1983 wrong. We knew you would because its clear to
this Court that you don't know what you are doing . . .
Here are new § 1983 forms. Do, again, that which you did
wrong. Only this time, do it right. Never mind your motions
for injunctive relief and appointment of counsel.”
Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff also complains about a lack of
resources at the jail's library, among other things. He
writes that the Court should have instead granted him
injunctive relief or granted his motion for appointment of
counsel, and he asks the Court to do so now.
allegations in the complaint were briefly summarized in this
Court's December 11, 2017 Memorandum and Order. However,
the Court will now summarize them more fully.
to the complaint, plaintiff suffers from numerous health
problems. These include a rod and screws in his left leg with
an open wound above one of the screws, a prosthetic heart
valve, kidney problems, hepatitis C, and pain due to back
problems and past burns.
I and II allege denial of medical care, and concern events
that occurred in September of 2017. In Count I, plaintiff
alleges that Dr. Hastings cultured a wound on his leg to
determine whether it was infected. He alleges that Dr.
Hastings did so even though he told her it was a waste of
time and money because he knew he had a MRSA staph infection,
and “all she needed to do was contact [St. Louis
University Hospital] and they would verify this and tell her
what antibiotics to use as they were aware of the infection
because I had left [St. Louis University Hospital] Against
Medical Advice.” (Docket No. 1, Attch. 1, p. 4).
then saw Dr. Hastings for a return visit, and she told him
that lab testing had revealed a MRSA staph infection. She
said she was not going to “run a bunch of antibiotics
through your body ‘cause that would just be a waste of
money. Besides, its been that way for months. But we'll
keep an eye on it and I'll discharge you from the
infirmary today.” Id. at 6. She prescribed a
nutritional supplement to give plaintiff's body strength
to fight the infection.
alleges that Dr. Hastings should have treated him with
intravenous Vancomycin “because every time I'm in a
hospital with real doctors who actually treat their patients
and I have an active MRSA infection, I.V. Vancomycin is what
they always treat me with. It is expensive and to treat me
with it would be counterproductive to Dr. Hastings'
‘Mammon Crusade, ' thus her refusal to treat my
infection.” Id. at 6-7. Plaintiff states that,
by not curing his infection, she is putting him at risk of
endocarditis and jeopardizing his life. He also states that
the surgeon who placed the rod and screws in his leg told him
that he required antibiotics. Finally, plaintiff alleges that
Dr. Hastings offered him acetaminophen and ibuprofen for his
pain, and that this amounted to gross negligence and callous
indifference because every physician knows acetaminophen
should not be given to a person with Hepatitis C.
Count II, plaintiff alleges that Dr. Hastings refused to give
him Oxycontin and Vicoprofen, even though he was in pain and
had been prescribed those medicines when he was previously
incarcerated at the jail. Plaintiff spoke to a nurse about
this, and the nurse called Dr. Bella. However, Dr. Bella said
that plaintiff could have ibuprofen, even though she knew he
had been on kidney dialysis. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Bella
did this to make him suffer, and she was therefore sadistic
and malicious and had violated his Eighth Amendment rights.
III concerns events that occurred in September of 2014.
Plaintiff was in the infirmary, and he asked defendant Jane
Doe, who plaintiff identifies only as “a passing nurse,
” to take him to the dentist. Id. at 12. Doe
replied that plaintiff needed to fill out a dental request
form. Plaintiff voiced disagreement, but did so anyway. Six
weeks later he was still in pain, and when he finally saw a
dentist, his tooth was infected and had to be ...