United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
SCOTT A. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff,
MASSACHUSETTS PARTNERSHIP FOR CORRECTIONAL HEALTH, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. O'TOOLE, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
reasons set forth below, the Court (1) grants the plaintiffs
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis; (2)
orders that summonses issue as to three defendants; and (3)
denies without prejudice the plaintiffs motion for the
appointment of counsel.
Campbell, who is currently incarcerated at the Plymouth
County Correctional Facility, brings this action in under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 ("§ 1983") and state law
for allegedly inadequate medical treatment he received while
an inmate at MCI Norfolk in 2015. According to the Amended
Complaint, on May 11, 2015, Campbell became dizzy and fell
down while walking on an outdoor track at MCI Norfolk. He
experienced excessive vomiting while being transported to the
Health Services Unit ("HSU"). At the HSU, he was
examined by Nurse Byron Shumaker, who consulted by phone with
Doctor Lawrence Churchville. Following Dr. Churchville's
instructions, Nurse Shumaker treated Campbell for dehydration
and administered an antiemetic drug. Campbell was placed in
the "Assisted Daily Living Unit" without any
further examination that day.
following day, Dr. Churchill examined Campbell, performed
some balance tests, prescribed antibiotics for a possible ear
infection, and ordered that Campbell stay in bed until the
next day. Campbell spent the rest of the day falling out of
bed and vomiting.
13, 2015, Dr. Churchville called for Campbell to be
re-examined when he learned that Campbell was still unable to
ambulate or balance. Campbell was sent to Norwood Hospital
the same day, where the attending physician immediately
recognized that Campbell's symptoms could indicate a
brain injury. Campbell underwent an emergency MRI, which
revealed severe bleeding the cerebral cortex as the result of
a stroke, and possibly evidence of a second stroke that
occurred while Campbell was in the HSU. Campbell spoke with a
doctor who stated that the failure to treat Campbell's
first stroke in a timely manner worsened his condition and
resulted in the second stroke. The same day, Campbell was
transferred to Boston Medical Center, where the diagnosis of
the doctor at Norwood hospital was confirmed. As a result of
the strokes, Campbell suffers injuries, including loss of
vision in the right eye and vertigo.
brings this action against the Massachusetts Partnership for
Correctional Health (“MPCH”) and five of its
employees: Thomas Groblewski, medical director of MPCH;
Rebecca Lubelczyk, regional medical director of MPCH; Dr.
Churchville; and Nurse Shumaker. He asserts against all
defendants a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a
violation of his Eight Amendment right to adequate medical
care and a state law claim for medical malpractice.
also filed motions for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and for the appointment of counsel.
Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
review of Campbell's motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and the accompanying prison account
statement, the Court concludes that plaintiff lacks funds to
prepay the filing fee. The Court therefore will grant the
motion. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), the Court
assesses an initial partial filing fee of $29.76. The
remainder of the fee, $320.24, shall be collected in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
Screening of the Complaint
plaintiff seeks to is allowed to proceed without prepayment
of the filing fee, summonses do not issue until the Court
reviews the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). Similarly, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, prisoner
complaints in civil actions that seek redress from a
governmental entity or officers or employees of a
governmental entity are subject to a preliminary screening.
Both § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A authorize federal
courts to dismiss a complaint sua sponte if the
claims therein are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a
claim on which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b). In conducting this review, the Court liberally
construes the complaint because the plaintiff is proceeding
pro se. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a pleading
must include “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). This means that it needs to allege
“enough detail to provide a defendant with ‘fair
notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which
it rests, '” Silverstrand Invs. v. AMAG Pharm.,
Inc.,707 F.3d 95, 101 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting
Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12
(1st Cir. 2011)) (alteration in original), or, in other
words, the statement of the claim “must ‘at least
set forth minimal facts as to who did what to whom, when,
where, and why, '” Calvi v. Knox County,
470 F.3d 422, 430 (1st Cir. 2006) (quoting Educadores
Puertorriqueños en Acción v. Hernandez,
367 F.3d 61, 68 (1st Cir. 2004)). Where a plaintiff brings a
claim against multiple defendants, the pleading must identify
the alleged misconduct and legal claims against each
individual defendant. The plaintiff cannot simply refer to
the defendants collectively where it cannot be reasonably
inferred that all the defendants engaged in the alleged
misconduct or that there is a basis for vicarious ...