United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Crow U.S. Senior District Judge
Chad Edward Weiss is hereby required to show good cause, in
writing, to the Honorable Sam A. Crow, United States District
Judge, why this case should not be dismissed due to the
deficiencies in Plaintiff's Complaint that are discussed
herein. Plaintiff is also given an opportunity to file a
proper amended complaint.
Nature of the Matter before the Court
alleges in his Complaint that he was admitted to the Sedgwick
County Detention Center on January 2, 2018, with “a
life threatening brain injury with skull fragments” in
his brain. Plaintiff alleges that the denial and delay in
providing medical care causes him to experience excruciating
pain and could cause him to “die anytime.”
Plaintiff alleges emotional and mental scarring.
alleges that since his arrive on January 2, 2018, he has been
under the care and treatment of Correct Care Solutions.
Plaintiff informed Lisa K. Ireland, LPN, that he has a
“hole in [his] head with bone fragments in [his]
brain” causing severe head pain and numbness on his
right side and right arm. Plaintiff had stitches in his head
and jaw at the time and still has a big indention on the top
left section of his skull. Nurse Ireland stated that
Plaintiff had no physical injuries that could be seen. (Doc.
1, at 7.)
filed a “sick call” on January 3, 2018,
indicating he was experiencing severe head pain, and that it
was hard for him to eat due to his broken jaw. LPN Laura
responded on January 5, 2018, stating that Plaintiff would
see the doctor soon. Plaintiff filed another medical request
on January 10, 2018, telling medical staff that he was
experiencing “seriously severe head pains due to bone
fragments that are more than an inch in [his] brain.”
Id. RN Shana responded that Plaintiff was scheduled
to see a doctor and that she did not know why Plaintiff was
not seen on the 5th. Plaintiff was seen by medical staff on
January 21, 2018, and they ordered an x-ray to be done on
January 24, 2018, by P.A. Radiologist William Wondra.
January 25, 2018, Plaintiff requested the results of his
x-ray. On January 27, 2018, RN Shana M. Bock responded that
they had not received the x-ray but that a brief initial
review of the x-ray indicated that a CT scan would be
ordered. On February 9, 2018, Plaintiff was taken to Via
Christi for a CT scan. On February 12, 2018, Plaintiff asked
for the results of his CT scan and on February 15, 2018, RN
Kim told Plaintiff that they did not have the results yet.
Plaintiff asked for the results again on February 22, 2018,
and was told that he had a lot of bone fragments “more
than an inch” in his brain and that Dr. Harold Stopp
was ordering a consultation with an outside neurologist. On
April 4, 2018, Plaintiff saw Dr. Marfarrij, a brain surgeon,
who asked if Plaintiff wanted surgery. Plaintiff responded
that he did because he was having severe head pain, numbness
on his right side and right arm, and he had “fallen out
twice.” Id. at 8. Dr. Marfarrij said he would
schedule Plaintiff for surgery.
Plaintiff returned to the Sedgwick County Jail he was taken
to the clinic where he spoke with Denise, the director of
nursing, and Dr. Harold Stopp, and they both told Plaintiff
that they would send a referral for the surgery, but that
most likely it would be denied by the Correct Care Solutions
(“CCS”) Medical Director. On April 15, 2018,
Plaintiff submitted another sick call to the clinic, asking
about his referral for surgery. LPN Veronica told Plaintiff
that it had not yet been approved because “it is an
elective procedure.” Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Stopp
and Denise, director of nursing, have denied him surgery to
remove the bone fragments in his brain.
alleges cruel and unusual punishment and deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. Plaintiff names as
defendants: Sheriff Jeff Easter; Dr. Harold Stopp; LPN Lisa
K. Ireland; RN Shana M. Bock; Denise (lnu), CCS Director of
Nursing; RN James P. Alexander; PA William Wondra; RN
Brittany N. Frazier; LPN Molly Rosemary Beck; LPN Mary K.
Smith; NP Travis Nickelson; and LPN Brian Dry. Plaintiff
seeks $200, 000, 000 in damages.
Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or
an employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion
thereof if a plaintiff has raised claims that are legally
frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff 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.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988)
(citations omitted); Northington v. Jackson, 973
F.2d 1518, 1523 (10th Cir. 1992). A court liberally construes
a pro se complaint and applies “less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In
addition, the court accepts all well-pleaded allegations in
the complaint as true. Anderson v. Blake, 469 F.3d
910, 913 (10th Cir. 2006). On the other hand, “when the
allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a
claim of entitlement to relief, ” dismissal is
appropriate. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 558 (2007).
se litigant's “conclusory allegations without
supporting factual averments are insufficient to state a
claim upon which relief can be based.” Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
“[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the
‘grounds' of his ‘entitlement to relief'
requires “more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations
omitted). The complaint's “factual allegations must
be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level” and “to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. at 555, 570.
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained “that, to
state a claim in federal court, a complaint must explain what
each defendant did to [the pro se plaintiff]; when
the defendant did it; how the defendant's action harmed
[the plaintiff]; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff
believes the defendant violated.” Nasious v. Two
Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir.
2007). The court “will not supply additional factual
allegations to round out a plaintiff's complaint or