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.

Jamison v. Bureau of Prisons

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

January 8, 2020

JAMES JAMISON, Plaintiff,
v.
BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER [Resolving ECF No. 7]

          Benita Y. Pearson United States District Judge.

         Pending before the Court is a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for dismissal filed by Defendant Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and individual Defendants Andrew Schumacher, Dr. J. Dunlop, and Jane Barnes (collectively “Defendants”). ECF No. 7. Plaintiff did not file a Response and the time to do so has passed. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendants' Motion.

         I. Background

         Pro se Plaintiff James Jamison brings a Bivens[1] action against Defendants, alleging they violated his right to refuse medical treatment while he was incarcerated at a BOP facility. ECF No. 1.

         Plaintiff arrived at the Federal Correctional Institution, Elkton (“FCI Elkton”) on February 26, 2019 and was housed there until September 5, 2019.[2] Id. at PageID #: 6. Upon his arrival, Plaintiff informed medical staff that he could not tolerate NPH, the type of insulin FCI Elkton had available for diabetic inmates. Id. Plaintiff subsequently refused to take NPH, claiming it caused negative reactions to his body. Instead, Plaintiff requested 75/25 Humulog insulin---a medication he had taken for ten years prior to incarceration. Id. at PageID #: 7. Eventually, Plaintiff received approval to take 75/25 Humulog. Id. at PageID #: 8. Plaintiff alleges that on March 8, 2019, his first day taking 75/25 Humulog while at FCI Elkton, he suffered a negative reaction. Id. at PageID #: 8-9. He thereafter refused to take the 75/25 Humulog.

         Plaintiff alleges that the three individually named Defendants, all members of FCI Elkton's medical staff, provided him with a refusal of medical treatment form and placed him on medical hold until Plaintiff agreed to take some form of insulin to control his diabetes. Id. at PageID #: 7. Plaintiff states that the hold, in effect, blocked his transfer to a halfway house where he could serve the remainder of his sentence. Id. at PageID #: 8. On April 26, 2019, Plaintiff agreed to begin taking the 75/25 Humulog insulin as requested by medical staff. Id. at PageID #: 21. The medical hold was lifted the same day. Id. Plaintiff states that he filed two administrative remedies against the individual Defendants, however, the process was not exhausted because of his upcoming release date. Id. at PageID #: 2.

         Plaintiff alleges that the individual Defendants, by refusing to remove his medical hold, forced him to take diabetes medication in violation of his 5th, 8th, and 14th amendment rights. Id. at PageID #: 22. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief totaling $48, 000, 000. Id.

         II. Legal Standard

         To survive a Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff's complaint must allege enough facts to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Ass'n of Cleveland Fire Fighters v. City of Cleveland, Ohio, 502 F.3d 545, 548 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) requires only that a pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” However, “a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). A complaint requires “further factual enhancement, ” which “state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 557, 570. A claim has facial plausibility when there is enough factual content present to allow “the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). When a claim lacks “plausibility in th[e] complaint, ” that cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Twombly, U.S. 550 at 564.

         When ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court may consider “documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice.” Solo v. United Parcel Serv. Co., 819 F.3d 788, 794 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007)).

         III. Discussion

         Defendants seek dismissal of the Complaint on three grounds: (1) Plaintiff did not properly serve Defendants pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4; (2) Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; and (3) Plaintiff failed to state a claim against the BOP.

         A. Service

         Defendants first argue that Plaintiff failed to properly serve the individual Defendants and also failed to serve BOP. Therefore, failure of service and lack of personal ...


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.