United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION
Paul
L. Maloney United States District Judge
This is
a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act,
Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), 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, the Court will dismiss
Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim
against Defendants Blanchard, Monroe, and Lamb. The Court
will order service of the complaint on Defendant Mason.
Discussion
I.
Factual Allegations
Plaintiff
is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) at the Oaks Correctional Facility (ECF) in
Manistee, Manistee County, Michigan. The events about which
he complains occurred at that facility. Plaintiff sues ECF
Nurses Kandi M. Mason, Lori L. Blanchard, (unknown) Monroe,
and Patricia Lamb.
Plaintiff
alleges that, on January 19, 2019, he got into a fight with
another prisoner, which led to both prisoners being sprayed
with a chemical agent. Both inmates were then escorted to
4-Block, where they asked to be seen by a healthcare worker.
Plaintiff told the correctional officer on duty that he was
experiencing burning in his eyes and that his vision was
blurry.
Defendant
Nurse Mason first evaluated the other prisoner. Plaintiff
claims that the other prisoner told Defendant Mason that
Plaintiff had assaulted him. When Mason approached
Plaintiff's cell, Plaintiff complained that his eye was
burning terribly and that his vision was blurry. Defendant
Mason responded, “Aww that[']s to[o] bad. Why did
you assault him?” (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.5.)
Plaintiff replied, “Why would you ask me that?”
(Id.) In response, Defendant Mason stated, “Oh
you don[']t want healthcare O.K.” (Id.)
She then walked away without treating him, leaving him to
suffer continuing symptoms. Later that day, when conducting
her medication rounds, Mason came to Plaintiff's cell.
She stated, “Do you have meds? I don[']t give a
f*ck.” (Id.) Mason again walked away from
Plaintiff's cell without treating him or giving him
medications.
Plaintiff
alleges that his eye continued to burn and his vision
remained blurry. On January 21, 2019, he submitted a
healthcare kite, describing his eye problems. He also filed a
grievance against Defendant Mason. In response to his
healthcare kite, Plaintiff was scheduled to be evaluated by a
nurse on January 25, 2019.
Ostensibly
in retaliation for Plaintiff having filed a grievance against
her a few days earlier, Defendant Mason approached
Plaintiff's cell and said, “I am not referring you
to a doctor, but you can have a[n] evaluation that will cost
$5.00.” (Id.) During the evaluation, Plaintiff
explained his ongoing burning and vision problems. Defendant
Mason flushed Plaintiff's eyes. She told him that, if he
wanted his eyes looked at, he must see the optometrist.
Plaintiff paid for the evaluation, but he complains that
Defendant Mason omitted his complaints of burning and pain in
his eye.
On
February 7, 2019, Plaintiff was evaluated by Optometrist
Brian Allen. Dr. Allen diagnosed Plaintiff with myopic
astigmatism and prescribed glasses. The glasses were ordered.
Plaintiff
submitted another healthcare request on February 13, 2019,
because his eye continued to burn and he had begun to
experience headaches. Defendant Mason provided no treatment,
advising Plaintiff that his glasses had been ordered and
would arrive in six to eight weeks and that, if his headaches
continued after he received his glasses, he should take
Motrin or Tylenol. Plaintiff contends that Defendant
Mason's callous response was taken in retaliation for his
two prior grievances against Mason.
Thirty-eight
days later, on March 25, 2019, Plaintiff continued to suffer
with a burning eye. He submitted another healthcare kite,
alleging that the problem had begun in January with the use
of the pepper spray and that Defendant Mason had ignored his
complaints, telling him to wait for his glasses. In response,
Mason scheduled Plaintiff to be evaluated by a nurse.
Plaintiff was seen by the nurse and then referred to the
optometrist for an appointment on April 4, 2019. At the
visit, the optometrist prescribed Tobramycin eye drops.
Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant Mason maliciously deprived him of
medical attention on January 19, 2019, in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. Thereafter, Defendant Mason allegedly
retaliated against Plaintiff by continuing to deny him
appropriate medical care for his eye. Plaintiff also alleges
that Defendant Mason falsified her medical documentation of
her evaluations by failing to include necessary information
and making a dishonest statement that Plaintiff had refused
medical care on January 19.
Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant Blanchard violated his rights by
failing to conduct an adequate investigation before denying
his grievance about the January 19, 2019, incident. He also
alleges that Defendant Monroe violated his rights by
inadequately investigating both of his grievances and failing
to conduct an interview on those grievances. Similarly, he
contends that Defendant Lamb violated his rights by ...