Edward Maclin v. Tate, et al.

Summary

The court conducted a merit review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of Edward Maclin’s pro se § 1983 complaint alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The court found plausible Eighth Amendment claims against Dr. Tate, Lisa Bishop, and Wexford Health Sources, Inc., denied the motion for appointed counsel with leave to renew, and ordered the case to proceed to service.

Holdings

1. The complaint plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Tate and Lisa Bishop because it alleged that they knowingly delayed or denied needed medical care, causing pain and permanent injury.
2. The complaint plausibly stated a claim against Wexford because it alleged that Wexford policies were the moving force behind certain constitutional violations.
3. The motion to request counsel was denied without prejudice because Maclin had not shown a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel independently and had not shown that he was effectively prevented from doing so.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Dr. Tate and Healthcare Unit Administrator Lisa Bishop.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that Wexford Health Sources, Inc.'s policies were the moving force behind constitutional violations.
3. Whether Maclin demonstrated the prerequisites for the court to request volunteer counsel in a civil-rights action.

Disposition

other