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.

Brooks v. Bausman

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

December 31, 2019

DAVID BRYAN BROOKS, Plaintiff,
v.
JACKIE BAUSMAN, ET AL., Defendants.

          ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

          JAMES D. TODD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         On September 12, 2019, Plaintiff David Bryan Brooks, who is incarcerated at the Henderson County Justice Complex (HCJC) in Lexington, Tennessee, filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) The Court subsequently issued an order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis and assessing the civil filing fee pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)-(b). (ECF No. 7.) The Clerk shall record the Defendants as HCJC Lieutenant Jackie Bausman; HCJC Correctional Officer Paula Lockhart; Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Luke Goodman; inmate Michael Jowers; Quality Correctional Health Care (QCHC); and the HCJC.

         Brooks alleges he has been held in protective custody at the HCJC because of threats he has received. (ECF No. 1 at PageID 2.) On March 23, 2019, he “made an electronic request” about not being allowed to use the phone. (Id.) Late that night, and into the next day, Brooks was allowed his “1 hour out daily, ” during which he was supposed to be the only inmate out of his cell. (Id.) However, while he was out, the electronic lock on the door to his area “popped open” three times, allowing inmate Jowers to enter the area and attack Brooks. (Id. at PageID 2, 4.) Brooks alleges that Jowers inflicted “life changing injuries, ” for which he was denied medical treatment. (Id. at PageID 2.)[1]

         Brooks alleges that an unnamed nurse signed his initials without his permission on a medical administrative form when he asked what pills he was being given. (Id.) He alleges that he has been in severe pain “24 hours [per] day-7 days per week” since the attack but has received no treatment.[2] (Id.) Brooks also alleges that unnamed medical staff refused to treat his pain and numerous medical issues from the attack. (ECF No. 1-1 at PageID 5.) He alleges that an unspecified LPN (possibly Defendant Goodman) saw him after the attack but, instead of scheduling him for surgery, merely gave him ibuprofen and sent him back to his cell. (Id. at PageID 7.)

         Brooks lists specific allegations against each Defendant related to the attack. He alleges that he sent multiple requests for help with his injuries to Lieutenant Bausman but received no response. (ECF No. 1 at PageID 4.) He alleges that he was “locked out” of parts of the electronic kiosk system used to submit grievances on March 24 and 25, 2019, while he was on protective custody. (Id.)

         Brooks alleges that Officer Lockhart was on duty in the guard tower when Jowers attacked him but did not respond to his call for help until after the beatings had ended. (Id.)

         He also alleges that LPN Goodman did not respond to his sick-call requests for treatment of his injuries and will not discuss any surgical treatment options. (Id.)

         Brooks alleges that QCHC also refused to provide treatment or a referral for surgery. (Id.) He alleges he saw one doctor in May 2019 who told him his injuries were “repairable by surgery, ” but QCHC has yet to refer him for the surgery. (Id.)

         He alleges that the HCJC failed to maintain safe conditions for him in protective custody or render care for his injuries. (Id.) Since the filing of the complaint, Brooks has sent the Court three letters in which he details the worsening of his medical conditions. (ECF Nos. 8, 10 & 11.)

         Brooks seeks surgery and other medical treatment, payment for that treatment, and compensatory damages. (ECF No. 1 at PageID 3.)

         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 ...

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.