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.

Jillson v. Medlin

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

July 11, 2019

JONAH JILLSON, Plaintiff,
v.
OSHI MEDLIN, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          ELI RICHARDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Jonah Jillson, an inmate currently confined at Hardeman County Correctional Facility, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding his medical treatment at Trousdale Turner Correctional Center (“TTCC” or “Trousdale Turner”), his previous place of confinement. (Doc. No. 1 at 2-3.) He brings this action against twelve defendants: Oshi Medlin, the TTCC Health Services Administrator; Nurse Practitioner Cobb; Nurses Clark, Murray, Carter, and Peterson; “John Doe Nurse”; two “Jane Doe Nurses”; “John Doe”; and two “John Doe Physicians.” (Id. at 1, 3.) Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in this Court without prepaying fees and costs (Doc. No. 8) and a motion to appoint counsel (Doc. No. 2). For the following reasons, Plaintiff will be appointed counsel and this action will be referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

         I. Application to Proceed as a Pauper

         The Court may authorize a prisoner to file a civil suit without prepaying the filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Because it appears from Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application that he cannot pay the full filing fee in advance, his application (Doc. No. 8) will be granted. The $350.00 filing fee will be assessed as directed in the accompanying Order. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

         II. Initial Review

         Under the screening requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), the Court must conduct an initial review and dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 1915(e)(2)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1). The Court must also construe a pro se complaint liberally, United States v. Smotherman, 838 F.3d 736, 739 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)), and accept the factual allegations as true unless they are entirely without credibility. See Thomas v. Eby, 481 F.3d 434, 437 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992)).

         A. Factual Allegations

         Plaintiff alleges that he arrived at Trousdale Turner on April 2, 2018. (Doc. No. 1 at 4.) During a medical screening at intake that day, Plaintiff advised that he had a prescription to take 500 mg of Kepra, an anti-seizure medication, twice a day. (Id.) Around 1:00 p.m. on April 2, Plaintiff was taken to Building A, Pod C, Cell 116. (Id.) During pill call that evening, Plaintiff told a female nurse that he needed his medication, but he did not receive it. (Id.)

         During morning pill call on April 3, Plaintiff again advised a nurse that he needed his anti-seizure medication and explained that he was “prone to suffer seizures without it, ” but he did not receive the medication. (Id.) Plaintiff started feeling unwell during the day on April 3, and again advised a nurse during evening pill call that he needed his medication. (Id.) He did not receive it, so Plaintiff asked the nurse to “contact the provider to verify that he in fact did have a prescription for anti-seizure medication.” (Id.) He advised the nurse that he would “definitely suffer from seizures” if he did not receive the medication. (Id.) The nurse did not return to his cell. (Id.) Plaintiff then expressed his concerns about not receiving his anti-seizure medication to an on-duty officer and requested that the officer contact medical, but the officer refused, stating that Plaintiff “did not have a medical emergency.” (Id.)

         From April 4 through April 13, Plaintiff suffered either one or two seizures every day, except for April 8. (Id. at 5-6.) Plaintiff provides the following details of this time period:

• April 4: one seizure; informed officer and two nurses of seizure at morning pill call; did not receive medication; request to go to medical denied.
• April 5: one seizure; did not receive medication; not taken to medical.
• April 6: two seizures; informed officer and nurse of pain in head and body; did not receive medication; request to go to medical denied.
• April 7: one seizure; did not receive medication; “[n]o medical code was called.”
• April 8: felt pain in head and body as a result of not receiving medication.
• April 9: one seizure; did not receive medication.
• April 10: two seizures; did not receive medication; informed nurse at morning pill call of not receiving medication, despite following TTCC sick call procedures and asking staff; explained to nurse that he had been taking prescribed dosage of Kepra “for a long time”; medical staff told Plaintiff “that the provider for TTCC medical has to get lab work done so that [he] can be given anti-seizure medication.”
• April 11: two seizures; did not receive medication.
• April 12: two seizures; felt “great pain, ” including in joints, muscles, back, and head; informed nurse that he urinated on himself; ...

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.