United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Northern Division
LISA R. MURPHY ADC #760343 PLAINTIFF
PAYNE, Director, ADC, et al., DEFENDANTS
Kristine G. Baker, United States District Judge.
the Court are the Proposed Findings and Recommendations
submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe
(Dkt. No. 7). No. objections have been filed, and the time to
file objections has passed. After the Proposed Findings and
Recommendations were submitted, however, plaintiff Lisa R.
Murphy filed several motions for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and filed several amended complaints
(Dkt. Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17). Ms. Murphy has
also filed motions for status update and a motion for copies
(Dkt. No. 11, 13, 19, 20).
careful consideration of the Proposed Findings and
Recommendations and the other pending filings, the Court
adopts the Proposed Findings and Recommendations as its
findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 7). The Court also
concludes that Ms. Murphy's claims must be dismissed
without prejudice because she is a
“three-striker” who has failed to allege any
imminent danger of harm. Accordingly, the Court denies Ms.
Murphy's motions for in forma pauperis status
and dismisses without prejudice her original complaint,
amended complaints, and supplemental complaints (Dkt. Nos. 2,
8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17). The Court also denies as moot Ms.
Murphy's motions for status update and motion to add
defendants (Dkt. Nos. 11, 12, 19, 20). Finally, the Court
grants Ms. Murphy's motion for copies (Dkt. No. 13).
In Forma Pauperis
Murphy, an inmate at the McPherson Unit of the Arkansas
Department of Correction, initially filed a pro se
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an application to
proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. Nos. 1, 2). Judge
Volpe denied Ms. Murphy's initial in forma
pauperis application because she failed to include a
calculation sheet or a certified copy of her trust fund
account statement (Dkt. No. 6). Judge Volpe gave Ms. Murphy
30 days to either pay the statutory filing fee or submit a
properly completed in forma pauperis application.
Judge Volpe recommends dismissal of this action because Ms.
Murphy failed to follow his instructions (Dkt. No. 7, at
December 13, 2018, Ms. Murphy did file an updated application
to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 9). While Ms.
Murphy's untimely filing may cure the problems identified
with her initial in forma pauperis application, for
the reasons discussed below, the Court concludes that Ms.
Murphy's claims must be dismissed pursuant to the Prison
Litigation Reform Act's (“PLRA”) three-strike
Ms. Murphy's Claims
Murphy's original complaint was filed on October 19, 2018
(Dkt. No. 2). Following the submission of the Proposed
Findings and Recommendations, Ms. Murphy filed three amended
complaints, a supplemental complaint, and a motion to add
defendants (Dkt. Nos. 8, 10, 12, 15, 17). The Court has
reviewed all filings in making this determination.
initial complaint, Ms. Murphy alleges that she has a heart
condition and that defendants have provided her with
inadequate medical care (Dkt. No. 2, at 10). Specifically,
Ms. Murphy alleges that, on January 1, 2016, she was taken to
“Hariss hospital for a CT” where it “was
determined that she had artioclortic calsification . . .
.” (Id.). Ms. Murphy further states that she
“continued to complain” about her medical
condition for “one more year.” (Id., at
10-11). She avers that she was then given a heart ultrasound,
“one of which showed ‘regurgitations' . . .
.” (Id., at 11). Ms. Murphy then alleges that
she “continued to complain for appox. one more
year.” (Dkt. No. 2, at 11). She states that
“[f]inally, after threats of legal action, Dr. Hughes
ordered plaintiff a heart monitor test, ” but she
alleges that he refuses to show her the test results
(Id., at 11-12). She further alleges that she
“has severe chest pains” and “abnormal
EKGs pretty much every single day.” (Id., at
12). She claims that, when her heart disease was initially
discovered, she believes that Dr. Hughes and APN Hutchinson
should have set up an outside consult with a cardiologist
(Id., at 16).
Murphy also alleges claims arising out of events that
occurred on April 1, 2018, and October 18, 2018 (Dkt. No. 2,
at 12-13, 15). She alleges that, on April 1, 2018, she woke
up with severe chest pains and sought emergency help
(Id., at 13). She claims that the officers who
responded did not provide her with emergency care but instead
used excessive force against her (Id.). She alleges
that, on October 18, 2018, she “presented at medical
for chest pains.” (Id., at 15). Ms. Murphy
asserts that, “in place of receiving medical treatment
. . ., she received disciplinary action.” (Dkt. No. 10,
at 15). She further asserts that she was not malingering and
that she was written up to compel her not to seek medical
attention (Id., at 16).
Amended Complaints And Motion To Add Defendants
Murphy's allegations in her first amended complaint
mirror those in her original complaint, but in her first
amended complaint she notes that she has received the results
of her heart monitor test, which she previously alleged were
withheld from her (Dkt. No. 8, at 12). She alleges that the
results of this test show “serious heart conditions,
conditions of which she has to present via a
cardiologist.” (Id.). Ms. Murphy's second
and third amended complaint add “Sgt. Rudd and C/O
Deberry” as defendants (Dkt. Nos. 9, at 1; 10, at 1).
Ms. Murphy's fourth amended complaint alleges the same
claims but adds additional defendants (Dkt. No. 15, at
21-22). In her motion to add defendants, Ms. Murphy seeks to
add the following individuals as defendants in this action:
“Sgt. Omelia, C/O Skinner, C/O Bateman, Nurse Scott,
Nurse Wayland, Ms. Hubbard, Dr. Hughes[, ] and Nurse
Albritton . . . .” (Dkt. No. 12).
Murphy's supplemental complaint appears to relate to new
claims. In her supplemental complaint, Ms. Murphy alleges
that she has “complained of very serious . . . back,
neck, knee, wrist[, ] and stomach pain.” (Dkt. No. 17,
at 7). Ms. Murphy further alleges that she would present at
sick call and be given a “CT scan, MRI scan, or X-ray .
. ., and every single scan would show a serious need for
follow up with an outside provider . . . .”
(Id.). Ms. Murphy states that Dr. Hughes and APN
Hutchinson would, rather than following up on these scans,
force her to go through the same tests again, “forcing
plaintiff to overexposure to unnecessary radiation.”
(Id., at 8). Ms. Murphy avers that “[t]his
over exposure to radiation has already begun to severl[y]
affect plaintiffs' vision, has caused severe nerve damage
to her chest wall and face . . .[a]s well as cell damage
throughout her whole body.” (Id.). Ms. Murphy
further avers that she has made nurses aware of the harms she
has suffered, but they have been “deliberately
indifferent to [her] medical needs.” (Dkt. No. 17, at
Murphy separately alleges that she suffers from “severe
back trauma” and “severe neck trauma” for
which she has received no follow-up. She also alleges that
she has carpal tunnel in both of her wrists and severe
stomach pains (Id.). She states that “her
hand[s] are almost useless” and that she has been
denied any follow-up for this condition (Id., at
12). Ms. Murphy also alleges various maladies related to her
stomach. She alleges that she suffers from stomach pain, ...