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.

Walker v. Stop

United States District Court, D. Kansas

June 6, 2018

JAMES K. WALKER, Plaintiff,
v.
DR. HAROLD STOP, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          Sam A. Crow, U.S. District Senior Judge

         The court has issued multiple screening orders in this case and ordered a Martinez report. This case is again before the court to screen plaintiff's third amended complaint (TAC) in light of the Martinez report and plaintiff's response to a show cause order. The TAC makes allegations regarding plaintiff's incarceration at the Sedgwick County Adult Detention Facility (SCADF). Most of plaintiff's claims concern a painful skin condition which plaintiff allegedly has suffered.

         I. The TAC

         Plaintiff names the following persons as defendants in the TAC: Dr. Harold Stop, a doctor at SCADF; Dr. Audrey Griffin, a doctor at SCADF; Dr. Travis, a doctor at SCADF; Sara LNU, Director of the SCADF Clinic; Alicia LNU, Director of the SCADF Clinic; Dr. Bill, Superintendent of doctors at SCADF Clinic; and Jeff Easter, Sheriff of Sedgwick County. In an attachment to the complaint, plaintiff also names Lt. Taylor, Lt. Smith, Deputy Padic, Deputy Santos, Deputy Tombs, Deputy Sullentroupe; and Deputy Perceil as defendants. Taylor and Smith are identified as superintendents of SCADF. Padic, Santos, Tombs, Sullentroupe and Perceil are identified as correctional officers assigned to Pod 1 and/or the Clinic.

         In Count I plaintiff alleges: “Cruel and unusual punishment, pain and suffering, malpractice, negligence, conspiracy, medical abuse against [a] disabled citizen, prejudice, wrong medicine and treatment, [and] entrapment.”

         In Count II plaintiff alleges the violation of his constitutional rights under the first, fifth, sixth, eighth and fourteenth amendments because of cruel and unusual punishment, pain and suffering, malpractice and negligence.

         In Count III plaintiff alleges that the SCADF Clinic defendants failed to respond properly or at all to plaintiff's serious medical needs. Again, plaintiff alleges pain and suffering, cruel and unusual punishment, negligence, the deprivation of constitutional rights, and entrapment. Plaintiff also alleges prejudice and defamation.

         Plaintiff has attached 13 pages of additional allegations which are somewhat repetitive. Plaintiff states that the medical defendants failed to research plaintiff's sensitive skin, blood levels, dvt's and allergic reaction to a change in skin medication.[1] Plaintiff broadly claims that he was given the wrong medication, the wrong amounts of medication, and denied medication.

         More specifically, plaintiff asserts that he was allowed to go to a skin specialist in Spring 2016. The specialist prescribed Thera Derm lotion and Triamcinolone Ace cream for redness or rash on his legs. On June 20, 2017, the SCADF Clinic changed the Thera Derm lotion to Dermadaily. Plaintiff alleges that he had a bad allergic reaction to Dermadaily. He developed a rash which spread to his feet, legs, stomach and arms. Plaintiff went through a grievance process and on August 8, 2017 received two bottles of Thera Derm a month from the Clinic. Plaintiff alleges that the rash worsened and that his legs were extremely swollen, itchy, discolored and painful.

         Although it is somewhat unclear, plaintiff appears to allege that in September 2017, Dr. Stopp gave plaintiff steroid injections which “conflicted” with plaintiff's blood thinning prescription for deep vein thrombosis. The rash did not improve. Plaintiff alleges that the skin on the bottom of his feet cracked and bled. Plaintiff was rushed to the hospital on September 16, 2017. Plaintiff claims he was forced to leave the hospital against the orders of the hospital's doctors. Plaintiff asserts that his condition did not improve. On October 3, 2017, plaintiff was taken to a skin specialist. Plaintiff claims he had requested to see a specialist in June 2017. Plaintiff was given a new prescription, but there was some delay in receiving it. Plaintiff claims his legs are still discolored and his rash is light, but visible.

         Plaintiff seeks monetary and injunctive relief.

         II. Screening standards

         The court shall apply the screening standards that the court has applied in a previous screening order in this case. Doc. 9, pp. 2-3. Plaintiff has written the TAC on forms for bringing an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and most of his claims appear to fall under this statute. A plaintiff bringing a § 1983 claim must “allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” Bruner v. Baker, 506 F.3d 1021, 1025-26 (10th Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).

         III. The show cause order and ...


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.