United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
JOHN H. COLEMAN, Plaintiff,
DR. MICHAEL BAUMAN, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a prisoner currently incarcerated at Potosi Correctional
Center, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this
civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having reviewed
plaintiffs financial information, the Court assesses a
partial initial filing fee of $1.50, which is twenty percent
of plaintiff s average monthly deposit. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b). Furthermore, based upon a review of
the complaint, the Court finds that the complaint should be
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Standard om Initial Review
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." Ashcrqft 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.
formerly an inmate at Southeast Correctional Center
("SECC"), brings this action against defendant Dr.
Michael Bauman under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff states
that on February 22, 2018, he was severely assaulted at
SECC's library and suffered a broken jaw in two places.
On February 27, 2018, Dr. Bauman performed a very extensive
surgery on plaintiffs jaw at Capital Regional Medical Center
in Jefferson City, Missouri. Plaintiff states "defendant
[was] supposed to have wire[d] my jaw but he went beyond that
[illegible] resulted in permanent life damages."
surgery, plaintiff was transferred to Jefferson City
Correctional Center to undergo a two-day observation. Dr.
Bauman prescribed a liquid diet. Plaintiff then returned back
to SECC and was housed in the infirmary for thirty days.
Plaintiff had two follow up appointments with Dr. Bauman,
where x-rays were taken, and plaintiff was told to continue
on the liquid diet. Plaintiff states "defendant failed
to exercise the customary skill and diligence that a
competent experienced doctor would exercise."
Describing the condition of Ms jaw, plaintiff states:
I can barely eat. I can't chew any longer. [F]ood on the
spoon ha[s] to be level before I can put it in my mouth
because I cannot open my mouth wide enough. It is
permanent[ly] stuck. My jaw  all the way over to my right
side feel like it's swollen and look like it too. My
right side even have my lips poking out. I bites on the
inside of my lips when 1 tries to talk or eat. I constantly
hears popping sounds from my jaw. I got plates on both sides
of my jaw when it should have been just a simple wire.
It'll take another surgery to put my jaw back on line.
states defendant "knew in advance that this could have
been prevented by doing a simple wire to my jaw like we all
thought he would ... Dr. Michael Bauman had failed to do an
liberally, plaintiff claims Dr. Bauman was deliberately
indifferent to plaintiffs serious medical need when he
performed surgery on plaintiffs jaw. To state a prima facie
case of deliberate indifference, plaintiff must demonstrate
that he suffered from an objectively serous medical need and
that the prison official actually knew of but deliberately
disregarded that need. Popoalii v. Correctional Med.
Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 499 (8th Cir. 2008). For a claim
of deliberate indifference, "the prisoner must show more
than negligence, more even than gross negligence, and mere
disagreement with treatment decisions does not rise to the
level of a constitutional violation." Id.
"Deliberate indifference is akin to criminal
recklessness, which demands more than negligent
plaintiff had a serious medical condition; his jaw was broken
in two places as confirmed by x-rays. The only question is
whether Dr. Bauman knew of this serious medical need and
deliberately disregarded this need. According to plaintiffs
complaint, Dr. Bauman performed an extensive surgery on
plaintiff's jaw, and has examined plaintiff
postoperatively through two follow up appointments. Although
plaintiffs complaint is not entirely clear, plaintiff seems
to state that the surgery involved inserting metal ...