United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division
L. Maloney United States District Judge
a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has granted Plaintiff leave
to proceed in forma pauperis. Under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321
(1996), the Court is required to dismiss any prisoner action
brought under federal law if the complaint is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune
from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A;
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court must read
Plaintiff's pro se complaint indulgently,
see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and
accept Plaintiff's allegations as true, unless they are
clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Applying these
standards, Plaintiff's action will be dismissed for
failure to state a claim.
Debvonne Lamar Marsh, a state prisoner currently confined at
the West Shoreline Correctional Facility in Muskegon,
Michigan, filed this pro se civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Corizon
Medical Services, Inc. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges
that between March 18, 2014, and March 31, 2014, he was
tested for all sexually transmitted diseases at the Charles
Egeler Reception and Guidance Center. Plaintiff's tests
all came back negative.
alleges that while he was confined at the Marquette Branch
Prison (MBP), he began to suffer from stomach pains.
Plaintiff kited Corizon Medical Service and on March 17,
2016, Plaintiff was seen by a male medical provider, who
examined Plaintiff and prescribed antacid and anti-gas pills.
between March 1, 2016, and April 22, 2016, Plaintiff received
a call out from the Assistant Deputy Warden for a scheduled
appointment with Corizon Medical Service. During the
appointment, a male medical provider drew three tubes of
blood from Plaintiff's right arm, but did not explain
what tests would be done. Plaintiff claims that the equipment
used for the blood draw was not taken from a box or package,
but was laying out in the open when Plaintiff arrived in the
room. As soon as Plaintiff's blood was drawn, he noticed
coldness and tingling in his left leg, and Plaintiff suffered
from a runny nose for approximately a week after the blood
draw. On April 22, 2016, Plaintiff sent a medical kite to
Corizon, requesting to be tested for “all sexual
transmitted diseases” due to the symptoms Plaintiff had
been experiencing since the blood draw. Plaintiff was called
out for an appointment regarding his request to be tested for
sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) sometime between April
25 and June 12 of 2016. After the appointment, Plaintiff
began to experience night sweats, headaches, and muscle loss
in his right arm. Plaintiff kited Corizon again, asking to be
tested for STDs.
17, 2016, Plaintiff was seen by a male medical provider, who
drew one tube of blood to be sent for testing. On June 22,
2016, Plaintiff was seen by a female RN, who told Plaintiff
that his HIV test was negative. However, Plaintiff claims
that his middle initial was listed incorrectly as W., when
Plaintiff's middle initial is actually L. Plaintiff
asserts that this proves that the test results did not belong
to him. Plaintiff contends that he can see the damage that
HIV is doing to his body, but is unable to receive proper
treatment because of the false test result.
1, 2016, Plaintiff informed a Corrections Officer that he was
dizzy and nauseated and needed to go to medical. The
Corrections Officer called Corizon and spoke to a male staff
member, who stated that if Plaintiff's symptoms continued
in the next hour, he should come to medical to be evaluated.
Plaintiff's symptoms continued and he was sent to
medical. Plaintiff states that he was accompanied by a
Corrections Officer, and that the male RN who saw Plaintiff
on behalf of Corizon would not see Plaintiff without the
officer being present. Plaintiff states that he was
uncomfortable discussing his concerns in the presence of a
Corrections Officer. In addition, the RN did not properly
evaluate Plaintiff for his symptoms.
5, 2016, Plaintiff was called to medical, where his
temperature and vital signs were taken and a male
physician's assistant asked Plaintiff about his eye.
Plaintiff told the physician's assistant that he was
seeing the HIV/AIDS virus through his right eye. The
physician's assistant told Plaintiff that was impossible
because the virus was microscopic. The physician's
assistant scheduled Plaintiff for an appointment with an eye
specialist. Plaintiff told the physician's assistant
about his night sweats, headaches, and muscle loss, and
stated that something was “moving around in his
stomach.” The physician's assistant examined
Plaintiff's stomach with a stethoscope, but could not
determine what was moving in Plaintiff's stomach.
Plaintiff was given milk of magnesium.
6, 2016, Plaintiff was seen by a male RN, who examined
Plaintiff and asked him about his dizziness and nausea.
Plaintiff stated that the HIV/AIDS virus that he could see
with his right eye was causing the symptoms. The RN states
that Plaintiff's HIV test was negative and that Plaintiff
would not be able to see the HIV virus with the naked eye.
Plaintiff asserted that the HIV test results were fabricated
and told the RN about his night sweats, headaches, and muscle
loss. The RN then contacted Social Worker Sarah or Sharon
Miller on Plaintiff's behalf. Ms. Miller came to medical
and asked Plaintiff questions such as the date,
Plaintiff's current location, the name of the president,
and whether he thought about harming himself.
claims that he has been infected with HIV by a blood draw
conducted by a Corizon employee and that his HIV positive
status has been concealed by fabricated test results.
Plaintiff seeks to be tested for HIV by an independent
medical provider, immediate treatment for HIV/AIDS, and
Failure to state a claim
complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it
fails “‘to give the defendant fair notice of what
the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.'” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). While a complaint need not contain
detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's allegations
must include more than labels and conclusions.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”). The
court must determine whether the complaint contains
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 679. Although the plausibility standard is not equivalent
to a “‘probability requirement, ' . . . it
asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has
acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “[W]here
the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more
than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has
alleged - ...