Miles v. Versalles

          OPINION

          JANET T. NEFF 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.

         Discussion

         I. Factual allegations

         Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the Chippewa Correctional Facility (URF) in Kincheloe, Chippewa County, Michigan. The events about which he complains, however, occurred at the Muskegon Correctional Facility (MCF) in Muskegon, Muskegon County, Michigan. Plaintiff sues Registered Nurse Timothy Versalles.

         Plaintiff alleges that he has a well-documented history of severe asthma, allergies, chronic rhinitis, and sinusitis. On December 23, 2016, at 9:23 a.m., Plaintiff began experiencing wheezing and tightness in the chest associated with his medical condition. Plaintiff was sent to health care where Defendant wrongly told him that he had to fill out a kite and agree to pay the $5 co-pay in order to receive treatment. The delay in treatment caused his condition to worsen, so Plaintiff filled out a kite, but did not sign it. Plaintiff states that Defendant then took an additional 10 to 20 minutes to begin evaluating Plaintiff, asking Plaintiff for information that was already part of Plaintiff's medical record. Defendant listened to Plaintiff's lungs and told him that he was fine, that nothing was wrong. At this point, the doctor stepped in and evaluated Plaintiff. The doctor then had Defendant give Plaintiff a breathing treatment and prescribed Plaintiff a seven-day course of prednisone.

         Plaintiff states that at the time of this incident, he had a special accommodation for breathing treatments 24 hours a day due to his asthma. Plaintiff contends that the potential consequences of failing to treat an asthma attack are increased symptoms, a pulmonary embolism, and death.

         Plaintiff attaches a copy of his step II grievance response, which states:

Investigation determined that grievant's issue was appropriately addressed by the Step I Respondent and is affirmed at the Step II Appeal. Review of the electronic medical record confirms that RN Versalle evaluated grievant on 12/23/16 re: an acute exacerbation of asthma. The nurse assessed the grievant and administered a breathing treatment and other medication as ordered by the physician. Grievant's symptoms appear to have stabilized in response to these interventions.

This respondent can neither confirm nor refute grievant's claims re: the timing of the interventions that were implemented during the nursing visit that occurred on 12/23/16. Grievant's point that he had a valid order for breathing treatments as needed is noted. This respondent contacted MCF Health Care and discussed grievant's concerns with supervisory staff. This respondent was assured that measures have been implemented to ensure that previously ordered breathing treatments are administered promptly - and without assessment of a co-pay charge. It is noted that grievant ultimately was not charged a co-pay for the 12/23/16 visit.

Grievant's concern re: his asthma symptoms is acknowledged and understood. Grievant is assured that he will be provided with any intervention deemed medically necessary to treat his asthma. Grievant is encouraged to notify Health Care immediately if he has any further adverse symptoms re: to his asthma.

(ECF No. 1-1, PageID.25.)

         Plaintiff claims that Defendant was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical condition in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff seeks damages and equitable relief.

         II. Failure ...