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.

Ray v. Reyes

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division

March 20, 2017

JOHNATHAN RAY, Plaintiff,
v.
NURSE REYES, ET AL., Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING PENDING MOTIONS, DISMISSING COMPLAINT, CERTIFYING AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH AND NOTIFYING PLAINTIFF OF APPELLATE FILING FEE

          JAMES D. TODD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         On February 22, 2016, Plaintiff Johnathan Ray (“Ray”), who is currently an inmate at the Trousdale Turner Correctional Center (“TTCC”) in Hartsville, Tennessee, filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) The complaint concerns his previous incarceration at the West Tennessee State Penitentiary in Henning, Tennessee. After Plaintiff submitted the required documentation, the Court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and assessed the civil filing fee pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)-(b). (ECF No. 6.) The Clerk shall record the Defendants as Nurse First Name Unknown (“FNU”) Reyes, Director of Nurses Alisha Hurdle, and Health Administrator Natalie Voss.

         I. The Complaint

         Ray alleges that on November 14, 2015, Defendant Reyes was dispensing pill medications in unit 8-A Pod at WTSP. (ECF No. 1 at 4.) Defendant Reyes arrived at Ray's door and asked for his name. When Ray told her his name, she gave him medication. (Id.) After Ray took the pill, Defendant Reyes returned to the cell door and advised him that she had given him the wrong medication. (Id.) When Ray advised Defendant Reyes that he had already taken the pill, she told him, “sorry.” (Id.) Approximately thirty minutes later, Ray began sweating and became dizzy, at which time Officer Tidwell, who is not a party to this complaint, called medical. Ray was taken to the infirmary and was told he would be fine. (Id.) The next day, November 15, 2015, Ray awoke with a rash and swelling in his face. (Id.) Officer DeBerry, who is not a party to this complaint, called the infirmary and told them about the problem, but they refused to see Ray. (Id.)

         Ray further alleges that on December 12, 2015, Defendant Reyes was again dispensing medication, and when she arrived at his cell, she said “Hello Mr. Ray” and gave him medication. (Id.) Ray states that he informed Defendant Reyes that the pills were different, but she responded that the infirmary had changed companies causing the pills to look different, but that they were the correct pills. (Id. at 4-5.) Ray took the pills, but then Defendant Reyes came back and said she had given him the wrong medication again. (Id. at 5.) Ray told Officer Tidwell that he was not feeling well, and Tidwell called the infirmary; Ray alleges that Defendant Hurdle and Voss both knew what had happened to Ray, but still refused to see him after he broke out in a rash, had swelling in his face, and became short of breath. (Id.)

         Ray seeks two million dollars in compensation. (Id. at 5-6.)

         II. Analysis

         A. Screening and Standard

         The Court is required to screen prisoner complaints and to dismiss any complaint, or any portion thereof, if the complaint-

(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

         In assessing whether the complaint in this case states a claim on which relief may be granted, the court applies standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), as stated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-79 (2009), and in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). “Accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true, the Court ‘consider[s] the factual allegations in [the] complaint to determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief.'” Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681) (alteration in original). “[P]leadings that . . . are no more than conclusions . . . are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 n.3 (“Rule 8(a)(2) still requires a ‘showing, ' rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief. Without some factual allegation in the complaint, it is hard to see how a claimant could satisfy the requirement of providing not only ‘fair notice' of the nature of the claim, but also ‘grounds' on which the claim rests.”).

         “A complaint can be frivolous either factually or legally. Any complaint that is legally frivolous would ipso facto fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Hill, 630 F.3d at 470 ...


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.