United States District Court, D. Kansas
JAMES K. WALKER, Plaintiff,
DR. HAROLD STOP, et al., Defendants.
Crow, U.S. District Senior Judge
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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. Plaintiff broadly claims that he was given
the wrong medication, the wrong amounts of medication, and
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.
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.
seeks monetary and injunctive relief.
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).
The show cause order and ...