Green v. Kerstein

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DELTA DIVISION CHARLES DANIELS GREEN PLAINTIFF ADC #113257 V. No. 2:22-CV-00083-BSM-JTR GARY KERSTEIN, Health Care Provider, Wellpath, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER Plaintiff Charles Daniels Green (“Green”), a prisoner in the East Arkansas Regional Unit (“EARU”) of the Arkansas Division of Correction (“ADC”), filed a pro se § 1983 Complaint and Amended Complaint alleging Defendants violated his constitutional rights. Docs. 2 & 3.1 However, before he may proceed with this action, the Court must screen his claims.2 Green alleges that he suffers from kidney failure, along with heart and lung issues. Doc. 2 at 4; Doc. 3 at 1. He asserts inadequate medical care claims against Green erroneously labeled his Amended Complaint as a Motion for Leave to Amend. The Clerk will be directed to redesignate the filing (Doc. 3) as Green’s Amended Complaint.

2 The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints, and to dismiss any claims that: (a) are legally frivolous or malicious; (b) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (c) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(a) & (b). When making this determination, a court must accept the truth of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, and it may consider documents attached to the complaint. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Reynolds v. Dormire, 636 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 2011).

Defendants Dr. Gary Kerstein (“Dr. Kerstein”), APN Tracy Bennett (“APN Bennett”), and Dr. Mohammad Kashif (“Dr. Kashi”).

To plead a viable inadequate medical care claim, Green must allege facts establishing that: (1) he had “objectively serious medical needs;” and (2) subjectively, Defendants “actually knew of but deliberately disregarded those needs.” Hamner v. Burls, 937 F.3d 1171, 1177 (8th Cir. 2019).

According to Green, on October 15, 2020, Defendants Dr. Kerstein and APN Bennett changed his medical classification, resulting in him being “assigned to work outside in extreme conditions causing complications to [his] health.” Doc. 2 at 4. He alleges he filed numerous grievances to correct his classification, and on July 2, 2021, Dr. Kerstein issued him a script to not work in the sun or heat for one year because he was scheduled to begin dialysis. Id.; Doc. 3 at 2. However, Dr. Kerstein “recalled [Green’s no-outside-work] medical script,” on August 6, 2021, which Green asserts violated his constitutional rights.

He further alleges that Dr. Kashif, “acted with deliberate indifference … when he falsified work records and told Dr. Kerstein and APN Bennett … to remove Plaintiff from dialysis and that it was ok that [Green] work in the field.” Doc. 3 at 5.

Lastly, Green contends that APN Bennett failed to provide him constitutionally adequate medical care, on August 24, 2021, when she saw him for complaints of swelling on the left side of his body, shortness of breath, and pressure in his chest, but only examined him visually and “purposely” disregarded his swelling and “ignored treatment” of his medical issues.

For screening purposes only, Green will be allowed to proceed with his inadequate medical care claims against Dr. Kerstein, APN Bennett, and Dr. Kashif.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. The Clerk is directed to REDESIGNATE Docket Entry No. 3 as Green’s Amended Complaint.

2. Green is ALLOWED TO PROCEED with his inadequate medical care claims against Dr. Kerstein, APN Bennett, and Dr. Kashif.

3. The Clerk is directed to issue summonses for Dr. Kerstein, APN Bennett, and Dr. Kashif. The United States Marshal is directed to serve the summonses, Complaint (Doc. 2), Amended Complaint (Doc. 3), and this Order on each of them, through the Humphries, Odum & Eubanks law firm without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor.° DATED this 7th day of November, 2022.

Wrenn ne as The Humphries, Odum & Eubanks law firm represents Wellpath, the contract medical provider for the ADC.