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.

Ranes v. Murphy

United States District Court, D. Kansas

June 11, 2019

CHAD EUGENE RANES, Plaintiff,
v.
BRIAN MURPHY, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER OF DISMISSAL

          SAM A. CROW U.S. SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter, a civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. §1983, comes before the Court on the motion to dismiss of defendants Jewel, Murphy, Sears, and Thompson. Plaintiff did not file a response. Accordingly, the Court has considered the motion under Local Rule 7.4, governing unopposed motions and allowing them to be granted without further notice. D. Kan. R. 7.4(b).

         Background

         Plaintiff commenced this action while in pretrial detention at the Allen County Jail, Iola, Kansas (ACJ). After conducting a screening of plaintiff's amended complaint (Doc. 8), the Court dismissed Counts 2 and 3 and directed a response on plaintiff's claim alleging he received constitutionally inadequate medical care for a hernia or hernias. Defendants have filed a Martinez report (Doc. 16) and the motion to dismiss (Doc. 17).

         The record before the Court shows plaintiff was booked into the ACJ in June 2015 and reported that he had a hernia that had been bothering him. He did not seek medical attention for that condition, and he was released on July 22, 2015.

         In December 2016 and in May 2017, plaintiff was briefly detained in the ACJ. During those periods, he sought medical attention for other conditions but did not report a hernia.

         On July 4, 2017, plaintiff again entered the ACJ. Between July and December 2017, he submitted a number of requests concerning medical care.

         During July 2017, he reported abdominal pain and a knot that was popping out. In late July, plaintiff consulted with Becky French, a nurse practitioner employed with Iola Family Physicians, who goes to the jail each week to address medical concerns of prisoners. She examined plaintiff on August 1 and determined the hernia did not require surgery.

         During August, plaintiff continued to request surgery and complained of stomach pain. On August 17, Dr. Timothy Spears examined him. Dr. Spears did not observe any signs of a hernia but stated that if a hernia popped out and would not go back it would be evaluated then. Based on those findings, the ACJ did not believe that surgery or additional procedures were medically necessary. Plaintiff continued to complain of pain and other difficulty caused by the hernia, filing medical requests and a grievance seeking medical treatment.

         Ms. French examined plaintiff again on September 12 and again concluded the hernia could be managed without surgery. She prescribed stool softeners. However, on September 28, after performing another examination, Ms. French believed that plaintiff should see a surgeon if approved by Sheriff Murphy.

         In October, plaintiff underwent an MRI, which did not reveal any hernia. Ms. French instructed jail staff to provide stool softeners and laxatives.

         In November, plaintiff asked to see Ms. French concerning his hernia and complained of pain. In late November, plaintiff saw a surgeon, Dr. Landau. Dr. Landau recommended surgery, and on December 28, plaintiff underwent surgery to correct a hernia.

         Standard of Review

         In ruling on a motion to dismiss filed under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court assumes as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and views them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party to determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). The pleading standard arising from the decisions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. ...


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.