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.

Carmichael v. Rohlfing

February 11, 2010

RAYNELL CARMICHAEL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JEFFREY ROHLFING, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

I. Introduction

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is the October 14, 2009, motion to dismiss filed by defendants Rohlfing and Dickenson pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on grounds that plaintiff's claims against them are barred by the statute of limitations. Also pending is the November 2, 2009, motion to dismiss filed by defendants Rohlfing, Dickenson, Dial and James pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) on grounds that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

On December 7, 2009, plaintiff filed an opposition to both motions. However, plaintiff's opposition addresses only the motion to dismiss arguing that his claims are barred by the statute of limitations.

After carefully reviewing the record, the court finds that the motion to dismiss on grounds that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies should be granted. For that reason, the court need not reach the motion to dismiss arguing that plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of limitations.

II. Plaintiff's Claims

This action is proceeding on the amended complaint filed April 24, 2009. The claims against each defendant are summarized below.

Defendant Rohlfing

Plaintiff alleges that on April 13, 2004, defendant Rohlfing, a medical doctor employed at High Desert State Prison (HDSP), saw plaintiff for complaints of high blood pressure, back pain, arthritis, bone pain, headaches and irritable bowel. Defendant Rohlfing told plaintiff that his osteoarthritis was causing his pain and ordered blood work and a follow-up appointment. Plaintiff saw defendant Rohlfing on April 27, 2004, and April 29, 2004, where he complained of pain in his back, ankles, knees, elbows and bones. Defendant told plaintiff that his osteoarthritis was causing the pain. Defendant told plaintiff that his blood work showed an elevated alkaline phosphatase and there was nothing to be alarmed about.

Plaintiff saw defendant Rohlfing on May 27, 2004, and June 18, 2004, for complaints of pain in his back, ankles, knees, elbows and bones. Defendant again told plaintiff that he had osteoarthritis that was causing the pain.

Plaintiff alleges that he later learned that there were seven other "out of range" items in his blood work that should have made defendant Rohlfing aware that something was wrong. Plaintiff argues that defendant Rohlfing should have tried to find out why plaintiff's alkaline phosphatase level was so high. Plaintiff alleges that had defendant investigated his blood work and sent him to an endocrinologist or a rheumatologist, it would have been discovered that plaintiff suffers from Paget's bone disease, osteoarthritis and vitamin D deficiency.

Defendant Dickenson

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Dickenson, a medical doctor employed at HDSP, examined plaintiff on May 18, 2004, for a cardiovascular consultation. On September 16, 2004, and September 29, 2004, defendant Dickenson saw plaintiff as a cardiovascular chronic care patient. During these visits, plaintiff told defendant Dickenson that he did not feel well, experienced high blood pressure, back pain, bone pain, arthritis, headaches and irritable bowel syndrome. Defendant told plaintiff that he had spoken with defendant Rohlfing and was aware of his condition. Defendant Dickenson told plaintiff that he shared defendant Rohlfing's opinion that plaintiff's osteoarthritis was causing him pain. He told plaintiff that he was aware of his elevated alkaline phosphatase blood work.

Plaintiff argues that defendant Dickenson should have sent him to an endocrinologist or rheumatologist. Plaintiff contends that had he done so, it would have been discovered that plaintiff suffered from Paget's ...


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.