Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Miles v. Sayeed

United States District Court, D. Kansas

October 8, 2019

MAURICE L. MILES, JR., Plaintiff,
BASEER A. SAYEED, et al., Defendants.



         Plaintiff brings this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although Plaintiff is currently housed at the Larned Correctional Mental Health Facility in Larned, Kansas, the events giving rise to his Complaint occurred during his incarceration at the Winfield Correctional Facility (“WCF”). The Court entered a Memorandum and Order and Order to Show Cause (Doc. 5) (“MOSC”) directing Plaintiff to show good cause why his Complaint should not be dismissed and giving Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. 10). The Court finds that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint does not cure the deficiencies set forth in the MOSC.

         I. Nature of the Matter before the Court

         Plaintiff alleges that he hurt himself by pinching his sciatic nerve while rebuilding the fish pond as part of his work detail on September 2, 2017. Plaintiff alleges that he was lifting 35 to 40-pound rocks when he twisted and tossed the rocks, hurting his back. After several days, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Sayeed, and he learned that he had a pinched sciatic nerve. Dr. Sayeed told Plaintiff that he was fine and that it would heal soon. Dr. Sayeed did not schedule Plaintiff to see a “professional.” Plaintiff asked to be seen by a different doctor, but he was again seen by Dr. Sayeed on September 9, September 25, and October 31, 2017. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Sayeed was rude and told Plaintiff that Plaintiff was wasting his time and tax payers' money. During Plaintiff's last few visits with Dr. Sayeed, Plaintiff was placed on the examining table where Dr. Sayeed would do small body movement tests to check Plaintiff's movements and capabilities. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Sayeed made Plaintiff's back worse and “jerked him around” and twisted his body into positions that were hurtful. Plaintiff informed Dr. Sayeed that he was hurting Plaintiff and needed to stop, but he continued. Dr. Sayeed responded that he was a doctor and knew what he was doing and that it was part of the procedure. Plaintiff was promised an MRI and an x-ray, but only received the x-ray. The x-ray showed a “straightening of the normal lumbar.” Plaintiff has been in constant pain and has been given Ibuprofen and Tylenol. Plaintiff filed grievances regarding his medical care, but Warden Conover either responded showing “no concern” or failed to respond.

         Plaintiff claims “medical maltreatment” and deliberate indifference in violation of the 8th and 14th Amendments. Plaintiff names as defendants: Baseer A. Sayeed, MD; Corizon Health Services; and Emmalee Conover, Warden at WCF. Plaintiff seeks nominal damages, compensatory damages, and punitive damages.

         II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

         The 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. § 1915A(b)(1)- (2).

         “To 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).

         A pro 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.

         The 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 construct a legal theory on a plaintiff's behalf.” Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted).

         The Tenth Circuit has pointed out that the Supreme Court's decisions in Twombly and Erickson gave rise to a new standard of review for § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissals. See Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted); see also Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir. 2009). As a result, courts “look to the specific allegations in the complaint to determine whether they plausibly support a legal claim for relief.” Kay, 500 F.3d at 1218 (citation omitted). Under this new standard, “a plaintiff must ‘nudge his claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.'” Smith, 561 F.3d at 1098 (citation omitted). “Plausible” in this context does not mean “likely to be true, ” but rather refers “to the scope of the allegations in a complaint: if they are so general that they encompass a wide swath of conduct, much of it innocent, ” then the plaintiff has not “nudged [his] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1247 (10th Cir. 2008) (citing Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1974).


         1. Eighth Amendment - Denial of Medical Care

         The Eighth Amendment guarantees a prisoner the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. “[D]eliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain' . . . proscribed by the Eighth ...

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.