United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
W. MILLING, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Emmitt Jones, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis, filed an action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, which has been referred to the
undersigned for appropriate action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a)(2)(R). After
careful review of the complaint (Doc. 1), it is recommended
that, prior to service of process, this action be dismissed
without prejudice as malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
Complaint. (Doc. 1).
the Court is Plaintiff's complaint on this Court's
§ 1983 complaint form, which asks Plaintiff whether he
has filed, in state or federal court, lawsuits dealing with
the same or similar facts involved in this action or related
to his imprisonment. (Doc. 1 at 3). His responses were
“no.” (Id.). He then proceeded to sign
his complaint under penalty of perjury. (Id. at 8).
Court, in screening the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B), discovered in its examination of PACER (Public
Access to Court Electronic Record) that Plaintiff previously
had filed other actions, namely, Emmitt Reed Jones v.
Thomas, CA 2:14-cv-00427-WHA-SRW (M.D. Ala. 2015)
(§ 1983 action dismissed for failure to state a claim
and for failure prosecute); Emmitt Reed Jones v.
Ward, CA 1:06-cv-00044-WHA-SRW (M.D. Ala. 2006) (§
1983 action dismissed for failure to prosecute); and
Emmitt Reed Jones v. J.C. Giles, CA
1:10-cv-00799-TMH-SRW (M.D. Ala. 2010) (habeas/mandamus
to the present complaint, Plaintiff sued Mr. Lott, a
registered nurse at Fountain Correctional Facility
(“FCC”), three Jane Roe LPNs at FCC, John Doe
Doctor at Atmore Hospital, and John Doe Doctor at Mobile
Infirmary. Plaintiff alleges that on November 20, 2016, he
filled out a “sick call” slip because he could
not urinate. (Doc. 1 at 13). When no one responded, on
November 21, 2016, after not urinating for two days, he went
to the shift office where Officer Banks recommended he see
Defendant Lott, whom Plaintiff saw that day. (Id.).
“Mr. Lott made notes, did not prescribe any medicine,
and any other information will be in [his] jacket. Shortly,
after, [he] was loaded in a transport van and [taken] to
Fountain.” (Id.). This is the extent of the
allegations against Defendant Lott.
Plaintiff arrived at Fountain, he saw three female
“doctors” who did not ask for his symptoms but
immediately began to catheterize him. (Id.). When
they were unsuccessful, they used a larger catheter.
(Id.). When that catheter did not work, they used
even a larger catheter, which did not work. (Id.).
was then transported to Atmore Hospital. (Id.).
There, the doctor did not ask any questions, but
“they” proceeded to catheterize him three times,
increasing the size of the catheter each time. (Id.
at 14). As result of the procedures, Plaintiff began
discharging blood. (Id.). Moreover, Plaintiff did
not receive any pain medication at the prisons and the
Plaintiff was transported to Mobile Infirmary.
(Id.). In the emergency room, Plaintiff needed to
urinate, but the doctor told him to “hold it.”
(Id.). Being unable to comply, Plaintiff urinated.
(Id.). After this happened as well as after several
attempts to catheterize Plaintiff, the doctor catheterized
Plaintiff. (Id.). Then, a female doctor came into
the room and told the doctor to remove the catheter.
(Id.). She asked the doctor if he had read the
chart, told the doctor that Plaintiff had just urinated, and
said a catheter would not correct the problem.
female doctor “took control of the situation and told
Plaintiff that she would fix what they tore up.”
(Id.). Plaintiff's prostate had been damaged,
which caused “poison” to enter his blood stream
and the need for surgery. (Id.). She called in a
heart specialist, and “pig line” was put in a vein
in his arm to his heart. (Id.). He was in the
hospital for seven days receiving antibiotics through the
line. (Id. at 15). The resulting long-term effects
are that his urine and semen simultaneously discharge when he
requests a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief,
compensatory damages of $50, 000.00 from each Defendant,
punitive damages of $50, 000.00 from each Defendant,
attorney's fees, all costs, and any additional relief the
Court deems proper. (Id. at 10, 19).
Standard of Review Under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) for
Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court
is required to screen his complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) and to dismiss it if it is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a ...