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.

Rodney Wiggins v. Suffolk County

May 1, 2013

RODNEY WIGGINS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SUFFOLK COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, SHERIFF VINCENT DEMARCO, NANCY W. R.N. #252, ANDREW LETO #850, DANIELLE BROUARD #1240, AND THE SUFFOLK COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY MEDICAL UNIT, DEFENDANTS.



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

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

On January 28, 2013, incarcerated pro se plaintiff Rodney Wiggins ("Plaintiff") filed a pro se Complaint in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") against the Suffolk County Correctional Facility ("SCCF" or "the Jail"), Christopher Garzabas #170 ("Garzabas"), Kenny #1150 ("Kenny"), Newman #1115 ("Newman") Kettenbeil #830 ("Kettenbeil"), Sheriff Vincent F. DeMarco ("Sheriff DeMarco") and a "John Doe" (collectively, "Defendants") along with an incomplete application to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry #2). Accordingly, on January 31, 2013, the Court sent Plaintiff a Notice of Deficiency that advised Plaintiff that he must either pay the $350.00 filing fee or complete and return the enclosed in forma pauperis application if he wanted to proceed with his case.

On February 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. While that application was pending, on February 28, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint purporting to allege claims only against the SCCF, Sheriff DeMarco, the SCCF Medical Unit, R.N. Nancy W, #252 ("R.N. Nancy W."), Andrew Leto, #850 ("C.O. Leto"), and Danielle Brouard, # 1240 ("C.O. Brouard"). Upon review of the declaration in support of the application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court determines that the 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). Therefore, Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. However, for the reasons that follow, the Amended Complaint is sua sponte dismissed in part.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff's brief, handwritten Amended Complaint submitted on the Court's Section 1983 amended complaint form is difficult to comprehend. As the Court can best discern, Plaintiff alleges that, on February 7, 2012, he was having chest pains and had a swollen, infected finger. Compl. at ¶ IV. He was allegedly "sent down by the sgt. that was on to medical" where Plaintiff was seen by Defendant R.N. Nancy W. Id. Plaintiff claims that R.N. Nancy W is a "rude, nasty disrespectful lady" and alleges that she did "nothing" to treat his medical condition. Plaintiff claims that R.N. Nancy W. did not take his blood pressure or perform any of the "proper procedures." Id. Plaintiff describes that he asked her for her name so he could fill out a grievance against her at which time Plaintiff was allegedly grabbed by C.O.s Brouard and Leto who are alleged to have assaulted Plaintiff. Compl. at ¶¶ IV, V. According to the Amended Complaint, these C.O.s smashed Plaintiff's head into the wall while Plaintiff was fully restrained and then threw Plaintiff on the floor and stomped, kicked, and punched Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff further alleges that he was choked with a strap and juice was poured over his head. Id.

As a result, Plaintiff claims that his neck hurts and that he has shortness of breath. Compl. at ¶ IV.A. Plaintiff also claims that his head, back, and legs hurt and that he did not get medical treatment for his injuries. Id. Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages in the total sum of five million dollars ($5,000,000.00).

I. DISCUSSION

In Forma Pauperis Application

Upon review of Plaintiff's declaration in support of his application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court determines that Plaintiff's financial status qualifies him to commence this action without prepayment of the filing fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

Therefore, Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

II. Application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915

Section 1915 of Title 28 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. ยงยง 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii), 1915A(b). The Court is ...


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.