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.

Flemming v. Rosadro

October 20, 2006

WOODROW FLEMMING, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MRS. ROSADRO, HEAD OF RMU MEDICAL; ANTHONY DURRANTE, SECURITY, RMU WALSH MEDICAL; ANTHONY BOUCAUD, DEPUTY FOR ADMINISTRATION, UPSTATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; DR. SHARMA, HEAD MEDICAL DR. AT RMU MEDICAL; DR. BURDICK, MEDICAL DOCTOR; LT. ADMIKS, HEARING LT. AND ACTING CAPTAIN, RMU; SGT. BISHOP, SGT. FOR SECURITY, UPSTATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; SGT. PIERCE, SECURITY SGT., RMU WALSH; N. SMITH, NURSE ADMINISTRATOR, UPSTATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; EVELYN WEISSMAN, HEAD MEDICAL DR., UPSTATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; DEANA L. BUFFHAM, MEDICAL MEDICATION NURSE, UPSTATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; NURSE BATIS, RMU MEDICAL; LISA O'BRYANT, NURSE, RMU WALSH MEDICAL; MRS. LOVETT, SECURITY OFFICER, RMU WALSH; C.O. SZAJER, SECURITY OFFICER AT RMU WALSH; C.O. GARDNER, C.O. WITH STICK SGT. OFFICER; NURSE DAVIS, MEDICATION NURSE, RMU WALSH; NURSE MILLER, RMU WALSH MEDICAL; MICHAEL MAHER, ACTING SUPERINTENDENT, RMU WALSH MEDICAL; AND MARIA TIRONE, DEPUTY SUPT. FOR PROGRAM, UPSTATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Scullin, Senior Judge

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. BACKGROUND

The Clerk of the Court has sent Plaintiff Woodrow Flemming's civil rights complaint, see Dkt. No. 1, and his application to proceed in forma pauperis, see Dkt. No. 2, to the Court for its review.

In his complaint, Plaintiff claims that his constitutional and statutory rights were violated during his confinement at Walsh Regional Medical Unit at Mohawk Correctional Facility ("Walsh RMU") and at Upstate Correctional Facility. Plaintiff names twenty individuals, who are employees of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, as Defendants in this action.*fn1

This is the twelfth action that Plaintiff has filed in this District since February 2004. Three of those actions are pending. The Court dismissed the other actions because Plaintiff failed to state a claim and/or because he failed to file pleadings that clearly delineated his claims against the individuals he named therein. As discussed below, this action appears to be Plaintiff's further attempt to file a proper pleading with respect to the claims that he first asserted in Flemming v. Wright, 9:06-CV-86.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

After reviewing the information that Plaintiff provided in his in forma pauperis application, see Dkt. No. 2, the Court concludes that he has set forth sufficient economic need to commence this action without payment of the filing fee.

B. Sufficiency of the Complaint

Since the Court has determined that Plaintiff meets the financial criteria required to commence this case in forma pauperis, the Court must consider the sufficiency of the complaint in light of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Section 1915(e) directs that, when a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that --

(B) the action . . .

(i) is frivolous or malicious;

(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or

(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune ...


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.