United States District Court, D. Delaware
STEPHEN M. PARSONS, Plaintiff,
DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et al., Defendants.
Stephen M. Parsons, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center,
Smyrna, Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff.
ANDREWS, U.S. District Judge.
Stephen M. Parsons, an inmate at the James T. Vaughn
Correctional Center in Smyrna, Delaware, filed this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (D.I. 3). He appears pro
se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. (D.I. 5). The Court screens and reviews the
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and
civil cover sheet indicates that this is an action brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for "medical
malpractice resulting in Plaintiffs hip to be improperly
place[d]). (D.I. 3-1). In November 2015, Plaintiff was seen
by Defendant Richard P. DuShuttle, M.D., diagnosed with
avascular necrosis, and advised hip surgery was indicated.
(D.I. 3 at p.5). When Plaintiff was seen by Dr. DuShuttle at
the end of January 2017, he was told that he would bet left
hip replacement surgery. Plaintiff underwent the surgery on
June 20, 2017. Following surgery, Plaintiff was placed in a
left knee immobilizer. (Id.) When he complained of
severe pain following the surgery, Plaintiff was told it was
normal. (Id.). He continued with complaints of pain
during his hospital stay. (Id.). Following his
discharge, Plaintiff returned to the VCC. (Id.).
Plaintiff was examined by Dr. DuShuttle on July 5, 2017,
Plaintiffs staples were removed and X-rays were performed.
(Id. at 6). Dr. DuShuttle advised Plaintiff the
X-rays were normal. (Id.). Plaintiff told Dr.
DuShuttle that he continued to have a lot of pain and he was
unable to stand and walk properly. (Id.). Dr.
DuShuttle told Plaintiff that rehabilitation would take a
long time and advised Plaintiff to be patient and work
was seen by VCC physician Dr. Tamar Jackson the end of July
2017. (Id. at p.6). Dr. Jackson ordered X-rays
"after a physical exam felt abnormal to her."
(Id.). The radiologist indicated "placement was
normal" but "a screw looked out of place."
was seen by Dr. DuShuttle about five days later.
(Id.) At that time, he removed the knee immobilizer.
(Id.) Plaintiff told Dr. DuShuttle that he continued
with a lot of pain, and trouble standing and walking.
(Id. at p.7). Plaintiff told Dr. DuShuttle of Dr.
Jackson's concerns. Dr. DuShuttle responded that he would
review the X-rays and told Plaintiff to continue with
physical therapy and pain management. (Id.).
Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Jackson on August 6, 2017,
Plaintiff was told that Dr. DuShuttle's office notes did
not seem to address their concerns. (Id.). Dr.
Jackson ordered a second opinion and, on September 8, 2017,
Plaintiff was seen by Dr. M. Brady who discovered some
problems following his examination of Plaintiff.
(Id.). Dr. Brady ordered a CT scan, and it revealed
that the ball and cup devices were not properly placed and a
screw was going through Plaintiff's pelvic bone.
(Id.). Hip surgery is scheduled in January 2018 to
correct the abnormalities.
alleges that, although Defendants Delaware Department of
Correction and Connections CSP, Inc. were advised Plaintiff
was uncomfortable seeing Dr. DuShuttle, he was forced to see
him. (Id. at pp.7-8). Plaintiff states that all
surgeries were performed at Bayhealth Medical Center by Dr.
DuShuttle. (Id. at p.8).
seeks injunctive relief in the form of proper after-care
treatment and compensatory damages. Plaintiff recently filed
a request for counsel. (D.I. 6).
federal court may properly dismiss an action sua
sponte under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b) if "the action
is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief." Ball v.
Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448, 452 (3d Cir. 2013). See
also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (in forma
pauperis actions); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (actions in
which prisoner seeks redress from a governmental defendant);
42 U.S.C. § 1997e (prisoner actions brought with respect
to prison conditions). The Court must accept all factual
allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light
most favorable to a pro se plaintiff. Phillips
v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir.
2008); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007).
Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, his pleading is
liberally construed and his complaint, "however
inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. at 94 (citations omitted).
action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams,490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and § 1915A(b)(1), a court may dismiss
a complaint as frivolous if it is "based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory" or a "clearly
baseless" or "fantastic or delusional" factual
scenario. Neitzke, 490 U.S. ...