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.

Whitfield v. Gupta

February 21, 2006

BENYEHUDA WHITFIELD, INMATE #N74277, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DR. RAJENDRA GUPTA AND HEALTH PROFESSIONALS LIMITED, DEFENDANTS.



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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate in the Lawrence Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff previously was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the initial partial filing fee was waived.

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint to add new claims and defendants (Doc. 12). In the original complaint, Plaintiff brings claims against Dr. Rajendra Gupta and Health Professionals Limited for failing to properly treat his medical condition. In his amended complaint, Plaintiff attempts to add a number of defendants that are involved with an unrelated claim arising out of a lawsuit that was heard in the Central District of Illinois. The new claims, essentially that defendants denied his access to courts in the prior suit, are wholly unrelated to the medical claim in this case.

All persons . . . may be joined in one action as defendants if there is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative, any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. Based on this rule, Plaintiff cannot join these defendants in this lawsuit. The claims presented in the amended complaint do not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence and do not rely on common questions of law or fact with those in the original complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint (Doc. 12) is DENIED. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed against the defendants and claims in the amended complaint, he must file a new lawsuit in the proper district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (venue).

This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides, in pertinent part:

(a) Screening.-- The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

(b) Grounds for Dismissal.-- On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint--

(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or

(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A. An action or claim is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Upon careful review of the complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds that none of the claims in the complaint may be dismissed at this point in the litigation.

Factual Allegations

In his original complaint, Plaintiff states that he experiences anxiety and panic attacks. He states that he complained to Defendant Gupta at Pinckneyville Correctional Center in March of 2002 about his condition, but he was denied medication. Plaintiff states that as a result of his lack of medication he suffered a major depressive episode and became suicidal. Plaintiff claims that the failure to provide him with ...


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.