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.

Maday v. Dooley

United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Southern Division

January 22, 2018

STANLEY J. MADAY, Plaintiff,
v.
BOB DOOLEY, CHIEF WARDEN AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; DENNIS KAEMINGK, SECRETARY OF THE SOUTH DAKOTA DOC, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; DR. MARY CARPENTER, DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; JENNIFER STANWICK-KLIMEK, DEPUTY WARDEN AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; REBECCA SCHIEFFER, ASSOCIATE WARDEN AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; ALEJANDRO REYES, ASSOCIATE WARDEN AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; BRENT FLUKE, ASSOCIATE WARDEN AT MIKE DURFEE STTAE PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; JOSH KLIMEK, UNIT MANAGER AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; TRAVIS TJEERDSMA, MANAGER AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; TAMMY DEJONG, MANAGER AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; PA MICHAEL JOE HANVEY, MEDICAL PROVIDER AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; PA BRAD ADAMS, MEDICAL PROVIDER AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; DR. STEPHAN SCHROEDER, MEDICAL PROVIDER AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; MISTY TOLSMA-HANVEY, NURSING SUPERVISOR, AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; LINDSEY RABBASS, NURSE AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; ROBIN MYER, NURSE AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; CANDICE FEJFAR, NURSE AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; DAYNA KLAWITTER, NURSE AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; DENNIS CROPPER, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; THOMAS HUITEMA, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; MICHAEL MEYER, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; LORI STRATMAN, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; MIKE GROSSHUESCH, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; NICOLE ST. PIERRE, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; MURIEL NAMMINGA, LAUNDRY SUPERVISOR AT MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; CATHERINE SCHLIMGEN, LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE SOUTH DAKOTA DOC, INDIVDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; UNKNOWN CBM FOOD SERVICES EMPLOYEES, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; UNKNOWN SOUTH DAKOTA DOC EMPLOYEES, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITES; UNKNOWN SOUTH DAKOTA DOH EMPLOYEES, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; JON E. LITSCHER, SECRETARY OF THE WISCONSIN DOC, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; KATHARINE A. ARISS, ASSISTANT LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE WISCONSIN DOC, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; THOMAS P. MALONEY, LIBRARY SERVICES AND EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY COORDINATOR FOR THE WISCONSIN DOC, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; UNKNOWN WISCONSIN DOC EMPLOYEES, INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; AND CBM FOOD SERVICES, MEAL AND COMMISSARY PROVIDER FOR THE SOUTH DAKOTA DOC, OFFICIAL CAPACITY;Defendants.

          ORDER FOR SERVICE

          VERONICA L. DUFFY United States Magistrate Judge

         INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff, Stanley J. Maday, is an inmate at the Mike Durfee State Prison in Springfield, South Dakota. Plaintiff has filed a pro se civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has, as required, paid his initial partial filing fee. This matter has been referred to this magistrate judge for handling pretrial matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and the October 16, 2014, standing order of the Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge. The purpose of this opinion is to screen Mr. Maday's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1) to determine if it states any claims upon which relief may be granted.

         FACTS

         The facts are taken from Mr. Maday's complaint, which is all the court has before it at this point. The complaint contains 19 separate claims and names 34 separate defendants. Mr. Maday was convicted of sexual contact with a child in Wisconsin state court. However, because he was a corrections officer in the Wisconsin state prison system, through an interstate compact between South Dakota and Wisconsin, Mr. Maday is serving his Wisconsin sentence in a South Dakota prison.

         Liberally construed, Mr. Maday's complaint alleges defendants have violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment (claims 1-9) because they have been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Specifically, Mr. Maday alleges he is diabetic and defendants have denied him properly fitting diabetic shoes and socks, have failed to provide proper medical care through its policies and the application of those policies to him, have delayed medical treatment of a fractured metatarsal bone in his foot, have failed to treat his plantar fasciitis, have denied him medically prescribed shoe inserts, have refused to give him ice, and have delayed giving him a properly fitting medical boot for his foot.

         Mr. Maday alleges defendants have violated his First Amendment right of free speech by denying him delivery of two Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition magazines (February 2015 and February 2016) and a hardcover book (claims 10-12).

         Mr. Maday alleges defendants have denied him access to the courts by failing or refusing to give him access to Wisconsin law and interfering with mail he has sent to a Wisconsin lawyer (claims 13 & 19).

         Mr. Maday alleges defendants have retaliated against him by filing false disciplinary reports against him, placing him in the Special Housing Unit (SHU), taking his personal property, and failing to investigate reports made by Mr. Maday that unwanted sexual advances were made to him (claims 14 & 15).

         Finally, Mr. Maday alleges he is disabled within the meaning of the Americans With Disability Act (ADA). He alleges defendants have violated his rights under the ADA by failing to provide him a proper diabetic diet, failing to provide proper diabetic shoes and socks, failing to provide mobility-impaired showers to him when his foot was in a boot, scheduling glucose draws at times of the day that prevent Mr. Maday from engaging in recreation, and by providing an outside recreation area that is rocky and uneven (claims 16-18).

         In the “relief” portion of his complaint, Mr. Maday requests declaratory and injunctive relief as well as nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages. It is these allegations the court now screens.

         DISCUSSION

         A. Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

         28 U.S.C. § 1915A requires the court to “screen” prisoner complaints. It states as follows:

§ 1915A. Screening
(a) Screening.-The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible, or in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for dismissal.-On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint-
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
(c) Definition.-As used in this section, the term “prisoner” means any person incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program.

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1), a prisoner's complaint should be dismissed on screening if it “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” This standard is the same standard as is used to determine whether a complaint satisfies the standards of Fed. R. Civ. P.12(b)(6). Kane v. Lancaster County Dept. of Corrections, 960 F.Supp. 219 (D. Neb. 1997). A prisoner complaint is screened for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 “accepting as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint and affording the plaintiff all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from those allegations.” Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 540-41 (8th Cir. 2014). Further, “a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, [is held] to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Jackson, 747 F.3d at 541. (citation omitted).

         The United States Supreme Court addressed the standard district courts are to apply to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). The Court adopted a standard by which plaintiffs must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570 (emphasis added).

         The Court stated that Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) requires only that a plaintiff plead “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Id. at 554-55 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)). The Court acknowledged that a complaint does not need “detailed factual allegations" to survive a motion to dismiss, but emphasized a plaintiff's obligation to provide more than a mere recital of the elements of his cause of action. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). The Court imposed a ‚Äúplausibility standard" and held that 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.