United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER [Resolving ECF No.
Y. Pearson United States District Judge.
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.
se Plaintiff James Jamison brings a
Bivens action against Defendants, alleging
they violated his right to refuse medical treatment while he
was incarcerated at a BOP facility. ECF No. 1.
arrived at the Federal Correctional Institution, Elkton
(“FCI Elkton”) on February 26, 2019 and was
housed there until September 5, 2019. 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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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