Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Arwood v. Bradley County Jail

October 23, 2007

STEVESON FARRELL ARWOOD, PLAINTIFF,
v.
BRADLEY COUNTY JAIL, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Curtis L. Collier Chief United States District Judge

Collier/Carter

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Steveson Farrell Arwood ("Plaintiff") has filed a pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Middle District transferred the complaint after assessing Plaintiff the $350.00 filing fee (Court File No. 1-2).

Plaintiff challenges his conditions of confinement and claims he is being denied adequate medical care. Plaintiff contends the medicine being administered to him in jail is not treating his symptoms and he requests that he receive the medication prescribed by his personal physician. Plaintiff has not requested any compensation but rather, in addition to requesting a transfer to another facility, requests the following relief:

A. Medication that were prescribed by his doctor

B. That he see a heart & lung doctor

C. That his blood pressure and sugar be tested

D. In the event that something happens to me my family will be given a fair compensation.

(Court File No. 1-2, p. 5).

For the reasons explained below the complaint will be DISMISSED.

I. Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)

The Court screens the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and § 1915(e). Furthermore, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2) provides the Court must dismiss a case at any time if the Court determines it is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

When screening a prisoner complaint, a district court must examine both § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A. If the civil action seeks redress from a governmental entity, officer, or employee, the district court must dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, which (a) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (b) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from monetary relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Should the complaint contain any allegations that do not fall within § 1915A, the district court must then examine the complaint under § 1915(e)(2). The requirements of §1915(e)(2) overlap the criteria of § 1915A. Section 1915A is restricted to prisoners who sue government entities, officers, or employees. In contrast, § 1915(e)(2) is restricted neither to actions brought by prisoners, nor to cases involving government defendants. Further, § 1915A is applicable at the initial stage of the litigation, while § 1915(e)(2) is applicable throughout the entire litigation process. A case that may not initially appear to meet §1915(e)(2) may be dismissed at a future date should it become apparent that the case satisfies this section. Thus, in prisoner cases, the district court must first examine a complaint under § 1915A and then review the complaint under § 1915(e)(2) before the case can proceed in due course. A district court is required to screen all civil cases brought by prisoners, regardless of whether the inmate paid the full filing fee, is a pauper, is pro se, or is represented by counsel as the statute does not differentiate between various civil actions brought by prisoners. The dismissal of a complaint under §1915(e)(2) or § 1915A does not negate a prisoner's obligation to pay the filing fee in accordance with § ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.