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.

Jennings v. Mohr

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

May 8, 2017

GREGORY ALLEN JENNINGS, Plaintiff,
v.
GARY MOHR, et al., Defendants.

          Judge George C. Smith

          ORDER

          KIMBERLY A. JOLSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

         Plaintiff Gregory Allen Jennings, a pro se prisoner, filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis on March 24, 2017. (Doc. 1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), that Motion is GRANTED. All judicial officers who render services in this action shall do so as if the costs had been prepaid. However, as explained below, the Court concludes this action cannot proceed.

         Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, this Court must conduct an initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court must dismiss the Complaint if it determines that it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1991) (“[T]he allegations of a complaint drafted by a pro se litigant are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers....”); Thompson v. Kentucky, 812 F.2d 1408, No. 86-5765, 1987 WL 36634, at *1 (6th Cir. 1987) (“Although pro se complaints are to be construed liberally, they still must set forth a cognizable federal claim.” (citation omitted)). In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 570 (2007)). Applying those standards here, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS DISMISSAL. (Doc. 1-2).

          I. BACKGROUND

         In the most general terms, Plaintiff brings an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to his medical needs. The details of his claim, however, are difficult to decipher. In terms of physical complaints, Plaintiff states that he has “very sharp pains” “at the top of [his] cervical, ” where he has “screws” (Doc. 1-1 at 5, PAGEID #: 10) and back problems (id. at 9, PAGEID #: 14). Plaintiff states that he had surgery at Ohio State University, where they “took a lot out” and “almost lost [him].” (Id. at 5, PAGEID #: 10). Plaintiff also complains of “constant[ly] getting real hard headaches” that cause “the entire portion of [his] left side” to go “numb.” (Id. at 11, PAGEID #: 16).

         Plaintiff claims he fell getting out of the bathtub, and Defendant Nurse Kelly Haggard and others picked him up despite being “well aware” that “his neck was broken.” (Id. at 7, PAGEID #: 12; see also id. at 9, PAGEID #: 14 (alleging generally that “medical officials put [him] in the wheelchair and put [him] in harm's way, considering [his] neck was broken already”)). Plaintiff also complains that, at some later point in time, Defendants took the wheelchair away from him, which caused him to fall. (Id. at 11, PAGEID #: 16). Similarly, Plaintiff contends that two nurses improperly “took a device from [him]” before he left North Central Correctional Complex. (Id. at 7, PAGEID #: 12).

         Plaintiff complains about the understaffing of medical personnel (id. at 6, PAGEID #: 11; id. at 9, PAGEID #: 14) and states that his requests for medication have been ignored (id. at 5, PAGEID #: 10). Plaintiff further claims, upon his transfer to a new institution, the medical officials were never informed, as they should have been, about an “upcoming procedure” (id. at 10, PAGEID #: 15) and, prior to April 20, 2014, an “H.C.A. said they didn't have to honor taking [him] to Toledo University.” (id. at 7, PAGEID #: 12).

         Plaintiff also claims that Defendants have improperly limited his movement within the institution. In particular, Plaintiff asserts he was confined to his cell because he was in a wheelchair (id. at 8, PAGEID #: 13) and when Nurse Haggard was working, which “was everyday” (id. at 10, PAGEID #: 15). He also asserts that “the H.C.A. would not allow [him] to go farther than the front part of the infirmary.” (Id.).

         Plaintiff's primary complaint appears to be based on his interactions with Dr. DeLaCruz in the summer of 2014. (Id. at 6, PAGEID #: 11). According to Plaintiff, he revealed to Dr. DeLaCruz that he “was intending [to] bring charges against the Med. Officials in Allen for the wanton infliction of pain they caused [him], ” to which she responded, “if you have a problem with any of my colleagues you and I will become enemies.” (Id.). Plaintiff claims that Dr. DeLaCruz conducted only “basic checks, ” but concluded that his medications were unnecessary. (Id. at 9-10, PAGEID #: 14-15). Plaintiff further accuses Dr. DeLaCruz of “removing all important paperwork” to hide her actions. (Id. at 10, PAGEID #: 15).

         Plaintiff asserts that “medical officials” have “done everything to make [him] give up the fight concerning [his] health” and to convince him “there was nothing wrong….” (Id. at 6, PAGEID #: 11). According to Plaintiff, tests showed “at the very beginning that [he] had a serious condition that required a specialist to deal [his] circumstances, ” but Defendants “tried to prove one thing. There was nothing wrong….” (Id. at 11, PAGEID # 16). He claims that “even at this point they are trying to get [him] to walk.” (Id.).

         Finally, in allegations seemingly unrelated to his health, Plaintiff complains of having to rely on an officer to put his outgoing mail in the box and that “auditors” conducting an “internal audit” were “laughing at [him].” (Id. at 8, PAGEID #: 13).

         II. ...


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.