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.

William Jandres v. Nassau County Medical Center

July 25, 2012

WILLIAM JANDRES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
NASSAU COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER, NASSAU COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT., NASSAU COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ARMOR CORRECTIONAL HEALTH INC., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Seybert, District Judge:

ORDER

On June 21, 2012, pro se plaintiff William Jandres ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the violation of his civil rights by the defendants, the Nassau County Medical Center ("NCMC"), the Nassau County Sheriff's Dep't. (the "Sheriff's Department"), the Nassau County Correctional Facility (the "Jail"), and Armor Correctional Health, Inc. ("Armor") (collectively, the "Defendants"), accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Upon review of the Plaintiff's declaration in support of his application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds that Plaintiff's financial status qualifies him to commence this action without prepayment of the $350.00 filing fee. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915(a)(1).

Accordingly, Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. However, for the reasons set forth below, the Complaint is sua sponte dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b) unless Plaintiff files an Amended Complaint as set forth below.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff's brief, handwritten Complaint, submitted on the Court's Section 1983 complaint form, alleges that, on August 10, 2011, Plaintiff "slipped and fell on the wet floor at E2/AB Hallway Housing Area" and that there were "no wet floor signs out to warn anybody of the dangers ahead." Compl. at ¶ IV. According to the Complaint, Plaintiff fell "in front of Corrections Officer Mr. Evans Badge # 210," who wrote up an "injury and/or incident report." Id. Plaintiff claims to have sustained "numerous injuries" to his "back, neck, left sholder [sic], and right knee."

Although Plaintiff alleges that "medical failed [to provide] adequate medical treatment," he does not allege that he requested such treatment. Rather, Plaintiff has annexed to his Complaint a series of "Sick Call Request" forms signed by Plaintiff and allegedly submitted between August 10, 2011 and June 10, 2012, all requesting medical treatment for his claimed injuries allegedly sustained on August 10, 2011.*fn1 For example, the first such form, dated August 10, 2011, states that Plaintiff "fell in the hallway . . . [and] injured my wrist, shoulder & back, as well as hit my head." Accordingly, Plaintiff states that he "feels it would be appropriate to receive exrays [sic] &, if necessary, MRI(s)." See Sick Call Request Form, dated August 10, 2011, annexed to the Complaint as page 4. The next form, dated August 19, 2011, requests only a "medication renewal - need something better. Still having back pain - pins & needles. Neck & Leg & shoulder also. From the fall that happened on 8/10." See Sick Call Request Form, dated August 19, 2011, annexed to the Complaint as page 5. By Sick Call Request Form dated August 26, 2011, Plaintiff asked "can you please help me again since the 10th that I had the accident I have been in pain & it's getting worse." See Sick Call Request Form, dated August 26, 2011, annexed to the Complaint as page 6. Apparently, on August 27, 2011, Plaintiff was brought to "medical" but was not seen because, by Sick Call Request dated August 29, 2011, Plaintiff states "you called my down to medical on 8-27-11 on Saturday but I was sent back without being seen. Can you please help me? I have back, shoulder, & leg pain. From when I fell in the hall way on 8/10/2011. See Sick Call Request Form, dated August 29, 2011, annexed to the Complaint as page 7. By Sick Call Request dated September 1, 2011, Plaintiff stated "I still need to see a doctor that can help me. I'm still in pain from that fall I had on 8/10/2011. My shoulder, neck and rt knee still hurt. I don't know what to do except keep writing. Please help." See Sick Call Request Form, dated September 1, 2011, annexed to the Complaint as page 8. The Sick Call Forms submitted by Plaintiff continue to request medical treatment for his claimed injuries allegedly resulting from his August 10, 2011 fall. On October 8, 2011, plaintiff acknowledges that he was seen by a "nurse" on September 22, 2011, but continues to request medical treatment from a doctor. See Sick Call Request Form, dated October 8, 2011, annexed to the Complaint as page 12. On October 17, 2011, Plaintiff again requests that a doctor diagnose his injuries. See Sick Call Request Form, dated October 17, 2011, annexed to the Complaint as page 13. On November 1, 2011, Plaintiff requested that his prescription for "Flexeril" be renewed because it "is helping me a little bit." Plaintiff also again requests that he be seen by a doctor. See Sick Call Request Form, dated November 1, 2011, annexed to the Complaint as page 14. On November 13, 2011, Plaintiff yet again asks for medical treatment, including that an MRI be ordered to diagnose his back, shoulder and knee pain. See Sick Call Request Form, dated November 13, 2011, annexed to the Complaint as page 5. At some point Plaintiff was apparently examined by two doctors, namely Drs. Lora and Nova, but Plaintiff claims that these doctors are "not doing anything to help me" and, accordingly, Plaintiff requests that he be seen by a doctor other than Lora and Nova. The next relevant form, dated December 11, 2011, reflects that Plaintiff must have been examined and x-rayed because he requests the results of the x-ray and requests an MRI if the x-ray does not show anything wrong with him. See Sick Call Request Form, dated December 11, 2011, annexed to the Complaint as page 18. On March 20, 2012, Plaintiff continued to complain of neck, left shoulder, right knee and lower back pain and acknowledges that he was seen by the "orthopedic." Plaintiff complains, however, that the orthopedic doctor told him to return in two weeks and that it has now been five weeks since he was first seen by the orthopedic doctor. See Sick Call Request Form, dated March 20, 2012, annexed to the Complaint as page 23. On June 6 and June 12, 2012, Plaintiff attributes his injuries to a "car accident and/or the incident" - the August 10, 2011 fall on the wet floor. See Sick Call Request Forms, dated June 6 and 12, 2012, annexed to the Complaint as pages 26 and 27.

Plaintiff's Complaint describes that his neck, back, right knee and left shoulder have "sharp, chronic pain" and that he experiences "numbness and tingling" as well as a loss of feeling in his hand, causing Plaintiff to drop things. Compl. at ¶ IV.A. As a result, Plaintiff seeks "proper medical treatment, proper diagnoses of my injury's [sic] and proper prescribed medications" as well as monetary compensation in total sum of three hundred and twenty million dollars ($320,000,000.00).

DISCUSSION I. In Forma Pauperis Application

Upon review of Plaintiff's declaration in support of his

application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds that Plaintiff's financial status qualifies him to commence this action without prepayment of the $350.00 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

II. The Prison Litigation Reform Act

The Prison Litigation Reform Act, codified at 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915, requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if the action is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) & (b); Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court is required to dismiss the action as soon as it makes such a determination. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

It is axiomatic that pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than pleadings drafted by attorneys and the Court is required to read the Plaintiff's pro se Complaint liberally, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1976)); Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, (2d Cir. 2010), and to construe the allegations therein "'to raise the strongest arguments'" suggested. Chavis, 618 F.3d at 170 (quoting Harris v. City of New York, 607 F.3d 18, 24 (2d Cir. 2010)). Moreover, at the pleadings stage of the proceeding, the Court must assume the truth of "all well-pleaded, nonconclusory factual allegations" in the complaint. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111, 124 (2d Cir. 2010) ...


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.