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.

Williams v. Thompson

United States District Court, D. Kansas

April 12, 2019

FREDDIE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
KAY THOMPSON, Defendant.

          ORDER

          SAM A. CROW, U.S. DISTRICT SENIOR JUDGE

         This 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.

         I. The complaint

         The court construes plaintiff's complaint as an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.[1] 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.[2] Plaintiff alleges that defendant Kay Thompson is a registered nurse and the “boss” of Correct Care Solutions, the health provider at the WCADC.

         More 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 medication.
Id.
[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.

         Plaintiff 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. Id.

         II. Pro se standards

         “A 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).

         III. Rule ...


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.