Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cook v. Kelley

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

May 7, 2019

REX A. COOK, Plaintiff,
v.
DEON KELLEY, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          John M. Ross, United States District Judge.

         This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Rex A. Cook's motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, motion for leave to amend his complaint. (Docket No. 10). For the reasons discussed below, the motions will be denied.

         Background

         Plaintiff filed this instant action, along with a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, on January 4, 2019. (Dockets No. 1 and 2). He later filed a motion for appointment of counsel, as well. (Docket No. 3). On April 23, 2019, the Court reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). (Docket No. 7). The Court granted plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel was denied as moot.

         Plaintiffs Motion

         On May 3, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, a motion to amend. (Docket No. 10). In the motion, plaintiff states that his original complaint should have been reviewed with liberal construction. (Docket No. 10 at 1). He further states that in drafting his complaint, he "was using the assistance of another individual due to his lack of knowledge of law." (Docket No. 10 at 2). After conceding that he did not "properly allege the facts and claims," he requests that the Court grant him leave to amend pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2).

         Plaintiff states that his amended complaint will properly allege "facts and claims" against defendant Deon Kelly, in that she "continued to administer Bactrim after being told of the side effects and allergic reactions" caused by the medication. He asserts that this will prove a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Docket No. 10 at 4). Plaintiff further contends that the amended complaint will also allege that defendant Richard Lisenbe "was a supervisor and on actual notice of the inadequate medical care and allowed plaintiff to continue receiving Bactrim after being informed of the side effects and allergic reaction."

         Plaintiff requests that this Court reconsider its earlier decision or grant him leave to amend his complaint. No. proposed amended complaint has been submitted.

         Discussion

         Plaintiff has filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider its order of April 23, 2019, dismissing his complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. Alternatively, he seeks leave from the Court to file an amended complaint. For the reasons discussed below, the Court must deny plaintiffs motions.

         A. Motion to Reconsider

         Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint alleged that defendant Kelley was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in improperly treating his staph infection and that defendant Lisenbe failed to properly look into his grievances and supervise his staff. After reviewing the complaint, the Court determined that plaintiff had failed to state a claim against either defendant.

         Plaintiff now asks the Court to reconsider its decision. In the motion, he clarifies that at the relevant time, he was a pretrial detainee at the Phelps County Jail. He alleges that Nurse Kelly continued to administer Bactrim even after being told of the medication's side effects and his allergic reaction. He further alleges that Sheriff Lisenbe "was a supervisor and on actual notice of the inadequate medical care and allowed [him] to continue receiving Bactrim." Nothing in plaintiffs motion convinces the Court that reconsideration is warranted.

         i. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.