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.

Jones v. Lott

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division

April 5, 2018

EMMITT JONES, #161334, Plaintiff,
MR. LOTT, Defendant.



         Plaintiff 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. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

         I. Complaint. (Doc. 1).

         Before 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).

         The 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 action dismissed).

         Turning 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.

         When 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.).

         Plaintiff 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 hospital. (Id.).

         Next, 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. (Id.).

         The 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”[1] 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 urinates. (Id.).

         Plaintiff 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).

         II. Analysis.

         A. Standard of Review Under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) for Maliciousness.

         Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to screen his complaint under 28 U.S.C. ยง 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 ...

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.