United States District Court, D. Kansas
CROW, U.S. DISTRICT SENIOR JUDGE
pro se action was originally filed in state court
and has been removed to this court. The case is now before
the court upon defendant's motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim (Doc. No. 6) and other pending motions.
court construes plaintiff's complaint as an action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff appears to be an inmate at the
Wyandotte County Adult Detention Center (WCADC). Doc. No. 4-1
at p. 6. He alleges that defendant has deprived him of
medical treatment and denied the release of medical records
to his attorney. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Kay
Thompson is a registered nurse and the “boss” of
Correct Care Solutions, the health provider at the WCADC.
specifically, plaintiff alleges that:
On July 16, 2018, [plaintiff] wrote an Inmate Communications
Form to [defendant] with a Legal Letter from
[plaintiff's] Legal Rep stating he was waiting on Medical
Records from KU Hospital Information Department. She said
“No.” Id. at p. 2.
In 2016; [Correct Care Solutions] stated [plaintiff] neither
[had] a diagnosis for seizure nor prescription for seizures
[Plaintiff] has suffered from canker sores and a rash he gets
every few months that is never treated. The issue is
addressed by CCS medical staff but told to [plaintiff] by CCS
per policy they cannot treat canker sores.
Id. at p. 3.
also alleges that “Respondent” has denied
plaintiff treatment for seizures for several years.
Id. at p. 4. He further alleges that canker sores
and the rash on his right hip is small but discomforting
especially over long periods of not being treated.
Pro se standards
pro se litigant's pleadings are to be construed
liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). A pro
se litigant, however, is not relieved from following the
same rules of procedure as any other litigant. See Green
v. Dorrell, 969 F.2d 915, 917 (10th Cir. 1992). A
district court should not “assume the role of advocate
for the pro se litigant.” Hall,
supra. Nor is the court to “supply additional
factual allegations to round out a plaintiff's
complaint.” Whitney v. State of New Mexico,
113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997).