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.

Cardona v. Lappin

October 21, 2008

EDDIE CARDONA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
HARLEY L. LAPPIN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate in the Federal Correctional Institution in Greenville, Illinois, brings this action for alleged violations of his constitutional rights by persons acting under the color of federal authority. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:

(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 it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; portions of this action are subject to summary dismissal.

FACTS ALLEGED

Cardona suffers from chronic diabetes, He alleges that all named defendants have been deliberately indifferent to his treatment, which eventually led to loss of vision in one eye. Prior to his arrival at Greenville, Plaintiff was incarcerated at both MCC Chicago and FMC Devens. At those facilities, he was given specific recommendations regarding management of his diabetes. He was told that if he did not maintain proper blood sugar levels, his vision could go bad.

Upon his arrival at Greenville, Defendant Dawdy met with him to discuss his condition. Dawdy told him that he would put Plaintiff on a chronic care program, and that Plaintiff would be directly cared for by Defendant Rataan. Plaintiff explained to Dawdy and Rataan that he had been taking insulin while at MCC Chicago. Dawdy performed an AC-1 test, after which he gave Plaintiff a prescription for an unspecified medication for his diabetes. Plaintiff states that he was no longer provided with insulin, nor were his blood sugar levels monitored on a daily basis.

While at Greenville, he began experiencing problems with his circulation. He had previously been prescribed an unspecified medication for this condition at MCC Chicago, so he spoke with Defendant Pickett about receiving that medication at Greenville. Pickett told Plaintiff that he had spoken with Dawdy about it, but Plaintiff was given no explanation as to why Dawdy had discontinued that medication.

Over a period of 18 months, Plaintiff complained regularly to Dawdy, Rataan and Pickett about the inadequate testing procedures. In response, he alleges that both Dawdy and Rataan told him that he should be happy he was receiving any treatment or testing at all, as many people outside of prison were unable to afford any sort of testing or treatment. Moreover, they were sick of the complaining from him and other inmates, and he could file a complaint with prison authorities if he was unhappy.

Plaintiff believes that the lack of treatment provided to him was due to inadequate funding and budgeting within the Bureau of Prisons. Therefore, medical care within the ...


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.