United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division
L. Maloney, United States District Judge.
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 Defendant Pain Management Committee Unknown
is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility
(ARF) in Adrian, Lenawee County, Michigan.
events about which he complains, however, occurred at the
Chippewa Correctional Facility (URF) in Kincheloe, Chippewa
County, Michigan. Plaintiff sues Optometrist Carolyn Pierce,
Registered Nurse Sue Howard, Corizon Health, Inc. (Corizon),
MDOC Pain Management Committee Unknown Part(y)(ies) #1,
Utilization Manager Unknown Part(y)(ies) #2, and Regional
Medical Director Unknown Part(y)(ies) #3.
alleges he suffers from bilateral Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma
(POAG). (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.4; Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1,
PageID.28.) His right eye has been in the severe stages of
the condition since at least July 10, 2018. (Compl., ECF No.
1, PageID.4; Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.28.) Plaintiff also
suffers from cataracts in his right eye. (Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1,
has received care for POAG from an offsite specialist
physician, Dr. John McManus. (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.4.)
On January 3, 2018, Dr. McManus prescribed COSOPT eye drops
to treat Plaintiff's POAG. (Id.) On January 23,
2018, Plaintiff kited MDOC Health Care requesting a refill of
his COSOPT prescription. (Id.) Defendant Howard
responded that the eye drops were on back order from the
contract pharmacy “Pharm Corr.” (Id.)
Several days later, Plaintiff again kited MDOC Health Care
requesting a refill for his prescription indicating he was
experiencing pain and blurred vision without his eye drops.
(Id.) Defendant Howard again responded, informing
Plaintiff of a nationwide shortage of the medication.
(Id.) On January 29, 2018, Plaintiff filed a
grievance, and a one-month supply of eye drops were obtained
from an offsite pharmacy on February 2-the same day of the
grievance's receipt. (Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.4-5; Ex.
C, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.50-51.)
thereafter, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Howard placed a stop
order discontinuing the COSOPT eye drops and replacing with
AZOPT eye drops, which Defendants Corizon and MDOC Pain
Management Committee approved on February 9, 2018. (Compl.,
ECF No. 1, PageID.5). On March 17, 2018, when Plaintiff first
used AZOPT, he immediately suffered “intense pain,
burning, redness and increased eye pressure.”
(Id.) Plaintiff “notified [D]efendants”
of the side effects and requested COSOPT, and Defendants did
not immediately respond. (Id.) On March 21, 2018,
Plaintiff met with Defendant Pierce who discontinued AZOPT
but provided nothing in its place. (Id.)
Plaintiff “kited [D]efendants” over a span of
nearly two months informing of his pain and worsening vision.
(Id.) On May 3, 2018, Plaintiff was called to Health
Care and received a refill of COSOPT eye drops.
(Id.) Plaintiff explained “his symptoms and
severe pain to D[e]fendant Howard.” (Id.)
Plaintiff's intraocular pressure registered an 18/19, and
Plaintiff was referred to Dr. McManus for evaluation.
McManus informed Plaintiff that “vision loss from nerve
damage or due to glaucoma cannot be restored.”
(Id.) Dr. McManus further recommended treatment of
Plaintiff's cataracts for proper evaluation and care of
Plaintiff's POAG. (Id.; Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1,
PageID.29.) Consequently, Defendant Pierce recommended
cataract surgery for Plaintiff to Defendant Pain Management
Committee citing Dr. McManus' recommendation. (Compl.,
ECF No. 1, PageID.5; Ex. B, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.31.)
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Unknown Utilization Manager
cited an MDOC policy to refuse Plaintiff's cataract
surgery until Plaintiff's vision worsened to 20/70.
(Compl., ECF No. 1, PageID.6.) Defendant Pierce appealed the
decision, but Defendant Unknown Regional Medical Director
upheld the policy and its application. (Id.)
January 15, 2019, Dr. McManus wrote in his report to MDOC
Health Care, “I continue to recommend cataract
surgery.” (Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.17.) Dr. McManus
continued, “I believe this is medically necessary for
appropriate glaucoma care.” (Id.)
asserts two claims. First, Plaintiff alleges Defendants
deprived him of medical care by failing to properly provide
his prescription COSOPT eye drops. Second, Plaintiff alleges
Defendants deprived-and continue to deprive-him of medical
care for his POAG by denying cataract surgery. Plaintiff
alleges that deprivation of medical care resulted ...