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.

Padilla v. Correction Care Solutions

United States District Court, N.D. New York

January 22, 2018

EMILIO PADILLA, Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECTION CARE SOLUTIONS, et. al., Defendants.

          EMILIO PADILLA Plaintiff, pro se Onondaga County Justice Center 555

          DECISION AND ORDER

          MAE A. D'AGOSTINO United States District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Pro se plaintiff Emilio Padilla ("Plaintiff") commenced this civil rights action asserting claims arising out of his detention at the Onondaga County Justice Center ("Onondaga County J.C."). Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl."). By Decision and Order filed on November 29, 2017 (Dkt. No. 4) (the "November Order"), this Court granted Plaintiff's IFP application and reviewed the sufficiency of the Complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. On the basis of that review, the Court dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Dkt. No. 8, generally. In light of his pro se status, Plaintiff was afforded an opportunity to submit an Amended Complaint. See Id. at 11. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 9 ("Am. Compl.").

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         The legal standard governing the dismissal of a pleading for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b) was discussed at length in the November Order and it will not be restated in this Decision and Order. See Dkt. No. 8 at 2-4. The Court will construe the allegations in the Amended Complaint with the utmost leniency. See, e.g., Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (holding that a pro se litigant's complaint is to be held "to a less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.").

         III. NOVEMBER ORDER and SUMMARY OF AMENDED COMPLAINT[1]

         In the original Complaint, Plaintiff asserted Fourteenth Amendment claims related to deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs against the County of Onondaga, Onondaga County J.C., "Medical Staff, " and CCS Correction Care Solution, and "Pharmaceutical Company." See Compl., generally. In the November Order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims holding as follows: (1) Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege a widespread policy or custom related to Onondaga County; (2) all claims against Onondaga C.J. were barred pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment; (3) the "Medical Staff" is not a "person" as required by Section 1983; and (4) claims against CCS and the Pharmaceutical Company were dismissed for failure to plead that the private parties are state actors. See Dkt. No. 8, generally.

         In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff adds the following new defendants: Dr. Monika Zirath ("Zirath") and Nurse Practitioner Jasminique Bobb-Diallo ("Bobb-Diallo").[2] See Am. Compl. at 1. The Amended Complaint does not contain any claims against Onondaga County, Onondaga C.J., the Medical Staff, or the "Pharmaceutical Company."[3]

         Plaintiff alleges that CCS entered into a contract with Onondaga County to provide medical care for pretrial detainees. Am. Compl. at 2. In April 2017, Plaintiff was treated by Zirath, an employee of Correction Care Solution ("CCS") for complaints related to a shoulder injury. Id. at 3, 9. Zirath told Plaintiff that an x-ray would be taken "within the next few days, " but suspected that Plaintiff suffered from arthritis and prescribed Naproxen/Naprosyn. Id. at 3-4. Zirath did not explain the possible side effects of the medication. Id. at 4.

         In July 2017, Plaintiff noticed that he was rapidly gaining weight. Am. Compl. at 4. On July 23, 2017, Plaintiff requested sick call because his thighs were swollen and his urine was "very dark." Id.; Dkt. No. 1-1 at 15. Plaintiff did not receive a response. Am. Compl. at 4. On July 25, 2017, Plaintiff submitted two additional sick call requests for medical attention because his entire body began to swell. Id. at 4-5.; Dkt. No. 1-1 at 16-17. Plaintiff did not receive a response. Am. Compl. at 5. On July 26, 2017, Plaintiff submitted another sick call slip. Id. at 5; Dkt. No. 18.

         On July 31, 2017, Plaintiff requested sick call because he could not urinate, had chest pain, and could not walk. Am. Compl. at 7; Dkt. No. 1-1 at 19. Later that day, Nurse Harrish examined Plaintiff and took his vitals.[4] Am. Compl. at 5. Plaintiff's blood pressure was 150/100. Id. Harrish denied Plaintiff's request to go to the hospital and told him to lay down and elevate his feet. Id. Later that evening, Plaintiff submitted another sick call slip. Id.

         Plaintiff was examined by defendant Bobb-Diallo, a CSC employee.[5] Am. Compl. at 5, 9. Plaintiff told Bobb-Diallo that he could not urinate and that he was experiencing chest pains. Id. at 8. Bobb-Diallo diagnosed Plaintiff with high blood pressure and provided blood pressure medication and a water pill. Id. at 5-6. Bobb-Diallo directed Plaintiff to drink a lot of fluids. Id. at 6. As a result, in a few days, Plaintiff gained sixty pounds. Am. Compl. at 6.

         A few days later, Plaintiff told Bobb-Diallo that he needed to go to a hospital and she replied, "let the medication work." Am. Compl. at 6. At the time, the nurse was aware that there was protein in Plaintiff's urine and she observed the swelling in his ankles, legs, and feet. Id. at 5, 8. Plaintiff was directed to return to his cell. Id. at 6, 7.

         On August 1, 2017, at 3:00 a.m. Plaintiff was examined by a nurse and, at 8:00 a.m., he was rushed to St. Joseph's Hospital. Am. Compl. at 8. At the hospital, Plaintiff was diagnosed with protein in his urine, heart failure, and acute kidney failure. Id.; Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1. On August 8, 2017, ...


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.