Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Burrow v. Correct Care Solution

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division

July 16, 2019




         This is a civil rights action provisionally filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3)(2011), the Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation.

         The case is before the Court for preservice screening under the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court has the obligation to screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the Eastern District of Arkansas on March 19, 2019. (ECF No. 2). It was transferred to this District on March 25, 2019. (ECF No. 3). On March 27, 2019, the Court entered an Order (ECF No. 7) directing Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint, which he did on April 3, 2019. (ECF No. 9).

         Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction (“ADC”) Barbara Ester Unit. (ECF No. 9 at 2). His Complaint centers on his time at the Arkansas Community Correction (“ACC”) Omega Supervision Sanction Center, prior to his transfer to the ADC. (Id. at 3-7). Plaintiff alleges that on July 20, 2018, as well as “many dates” between April 24 and August 14, 2018, he was denied medical care. Specifically, he alleges his legs became swollen around his knees and ankles, with large knots “all over them.” He alleges this caused him to suffer extreme pain. (Id. at 4). He alleges it took three sick calls before he was seen, at which time Nurse Aunspaugh “failed to treat or diagnose” him. (Id.). He states that this violated ACC policy because he was not seen or treated within 72 hours of his first request. (Id. at 5). He alleges this delay in treatment caused him to suffer nerve damage and severe pain. (Id.). Plaintiff names Correct Care Solution employee Nurse Aunspaugh for this claim.

         Plaintiff also alleges that on July 20, 2019, he passed out in his cell, hitting his head and injuring his back. This left him unable to walk, stand, or sit. (Id. at 5). He was rolled onto a board and carried to the infirmary by ACC staff. At the infirmary, he was looked over “briefly” but was not taken to a hospital to receive any x-rays, MRI, or other tests. (Id. at 6). Instead, he was carried back to his segregation cell and left on a rack with no mat and no blanket. (Id.) As a result he now suffers from “bad neck and back pain.” (Id. at 5-6). Plaintiff names Defendants Aunspaugh, Grooms, Trotter, Correct Care Solution, and the Omega Supervised Sanction Program for this claim.

         Plaintiff alleges he was forced to stand and walk on his injured legs while in the ACC. He further alleges he was “wrongfully kicked out” of the program and transferred to the ADC due to his illness. (Id. 6). Plaintiff names the Omega Program, Defendant Glover and Defendant Jackson for this claim. Plaintiff attached a revocation letter to his first Complaint. In this letter, Defendant Glover requests a revocation of supervised probation for Plaintiff because he was disruptive and had to be monitored by staff to ensure he did not cause harm to himself or others. (ECF No. 2 at 7). Glover further writes that Plaintiff was seen by medical staff who confirmed he did not need any medical accommodations and he showed no remorse for his actions during his disciplinary court hearing. (Id.).

         Plaintiff proceeds against all Defendants in their personal and official capacity. (Id. at 4-6). He seeks compensatory damages. (Id. at 7).


         Under the PLRA, the Court is obligated to screen the case prior to service of process being issued. The Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that: (1) are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or, (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

         A claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “In evaluating whether a pro se plaintiff has asserted sufficient facts to state a claim, we hold ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded ... to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'” Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 541 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). Even a pro se Plaintiff must allege specific facts sufficient to support a claim. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).

         III. ANALYSIS

         A. ACC ...

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.