Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Woodson v. Allbaugh

United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma

July 20, 2018

MARCUS D. WOODSON, Plaintiff,
v.
JOE ALLBAUGH, et al., Defendants,

          OPINION AND ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

          Ronald A. White United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff Marcus D. Woodson, a pro se prisoner in the custody of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (“DOC”), filed this civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking relief for alleged constitutional violations during his incarceration at Davis Correctional Facility (“DCF”), a private prison in Holdenville, Oklahoma (Dkt. 1). The defendants are DOC Director Joe Allbaugh; Core Civic, Inc., aka CCA; M ark Knutson, DOC Director of Administrative Review; Buddy Honaker, DOC Chief Medical Officer; Jamie Lysinger, RN; Rhonda Shivey, LPN; Serena Brewer, Medical Practitioner; Mark Gentry, Assistant Warden; Julia Dorman, Chief of Unit Management; John Doe, Chief of Security; DCF Assistant Warden Perez; Oklahoma Board of Corrections; DCF Warden James Yates; Jamie Morales, Mailroom Tech; and Ray Larimer.

         Plaintiff also has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and supporting documentation in conformance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (Dkt. 2). A review of Plaintiff's litigation history, however, indicates he has accumulated at least three prior civil rights dismissals that count as “prior occasions” or “strikes, ” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g):

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

Id. The strikes were assessed in the following cases:

(1) Woodson v. Casasanta, No. 96-CV-049 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 19, 1998) (dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted).
(2) Woodson v. McLeod, No. 96-CV-098 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 1998) (dismissed as frivolous).
(3) Woodson v. Garfield County Sheriff, No. CIV-05-778-T, 2015 WL 2035039 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 23, 2005) (dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted).
(4) Woodson v. Garfield County Sheriff's Dep't, No. CIV-05-1204-T (W.D. Okla. Dec. 28, 2006) (dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies with assessment of “strike”).

         Plaintiff alleges the conditions of his confinement are unconstitutional, and he specifically alleges in his complaint and ifp motion that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury as stated below:

Plaintiff labeled a snitch and rat in front of maximum general prison population, and gang members, and has been targeted by gangs for [illegible] attacks. Denial of adequate medical care for broken collar bone and chronic back injury and deteriorating spinal condition. Exposure to unsanitary conditions and increased risk of violence due to prison overcrowding.

(Dkt. 1 at 12).

         In Davis v. GEO Group. Corr., Inc., 696 Fed.Appx. 851, 854 (10th Cir. 2017), the plaintiff alleged he had been denied adequate medical care by qualified medical providers for his severe back pain and for a plantar wart, and he had been denied footwear with adequate arch support. He claimed he had suffered more than 25 years from the back pain which significantly affected his daily activities, and the pain was exacerbated by his not having proper foot support. He had been treated at his facility with injections of prednisone, but his requests to see an outside specialist and for orthopedic shoes were denied, and the arch support insoles he was provided did not fit his shoes. He contended that without proper medical treatment, his suffering would continue and his condition would deteriorate. Id.

         The district court denied Mr. Davis's application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to the “three-strike” rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Court reasoned that, according to his own documents, Davis could purchase athletic shoes from the canteen as directed by his podiatrist. He also had received silver nitrate to remove the plantar wart, and the medical personnel had responded to and treated ...


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.