govinfo:USCOURTS-kyed-0_24-cv-00053-0

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 
NORTHERN DIVISION  
AT ASHLAND 
                                              
CIVIL ACTION NO. 24-53-DLB   
 
MICHAEL THORNTON PLAINTIFF 
      
 
VS. MEMORANDUM ORDER 
 
 
WELLPATH, ET AL.   DEFENDANTS 
 
*** *** *** *** 
Michael Thornton is an inmate at t he Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex 
(“EKCC”), a state prison located in West
 Liberty, Kentucky.  Proceeding without a lawyer, 
Thornton filed a civil rights complaint.  (Doc. # 1).  That pleading is now before the Court 
on initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2).  
Thornton alleges that, in May of 2023, he experienced pain in his elbow and arm 
and was taken from the EKCC to the University of Kentucky (“UK”) Hospital for surgery.  
(Doc. # 1 at 4).  Thornton says he returned to  the prison after the surgery and “was told 
by the Nursing Staff (Well path) that I was able to re move the bandage and take a 
shower/clean my arm.”  (Id.).  Thornton suggests he did so and that this caused his arm 
to become infected.  ( See id.).  Thornton then a lleges that he “had to be placed on 2 
antibiotics” and visit “the specialist” who “said that the bandage and wrap was never 
suppose[d] to come off until I came to have my stich[e]s removed,” which was 
approximately three weeks later.  (Id.).  Thornton then says, “The specialist told me that 
he didn’t tell the prison or[ ] medical staff that, but that was the full instructions I was given 
Case: 0:24-cv-00053-DLB-CJS     Doc #: 21     Filed: 12/11/24     Page: 1 of 6 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
2 
 
as soon as I got[ ] back.”  (Id.).  Thornton suggests that, because he prematurely cleaned 
his arm, he now suffers from various health-related complications and may need to have 
an additional surgery.  ( See id. at 4-5).  Thornton also sa ys that he “complained to the 
Prison Nurse & APRN (Wellpath) several times & filed a grievance,” but “it was sent back” 
because “they claimed I couldn’t file one.”  (Id. at 4).  
Thornton names four defendants in his pleading:  (1) W. Whitney, who he alleges 
is employed by Wellpath, Inc. as an Adv anced Practice Registered Nurse (“APRN”) and 
works at the EKCC; (2) Srinat h Kamineni, who he alleges is  a medical do ctor at “UK 
Healthcare/KY Clinic Orthopedic Surgery – Sports;” (3) Justin B. Cecil, who he alleges is 
a physician assistant (“PA”) at “UK Health care/KY Clinic Orthopedic Surgery – Sports;” 
and (4) Denise Burkett, who he alleges is the “Medical Services Director” at the Kentucky 
Department of Corrections (“KDOC”).  (Id. at 2).  Thornton indicates that he is suing each 
defendant in their individual and official capacities.  (Id.). 
While Thornton’s legal claims are difficu lt to follow, he appears to be asserting 
Eighth Amendment claims against at least so me of the defendants, saying that “prison 
officials violate the Constitution when they act with pure deliberate indifference to an 
inmate’s serious medical needs.”  (Id. at 5).  Thornton also suggests he wants to pursue 
state law negligence claims against the various  defendants; after all, he references the 
“duty of care owed to prisoners,” the “standard of care,” the “duty under state statutes . . . 
to provide reasonable care;” and the “duty to pr ovide medical care.”  ( Id.).  Thornton is 
seeking compensatory and punitive damages.  (Id. at 6). 
Having reviewed Thornton’s pleading pur suant to §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2), the 
Court will first dismiss, without prejudice, his official capacity claims against W. Whitney, 
Case: 0:24-cv-00053-DLB-CJS     Doc #: 21     Filed: 12/11/24     Page: 2 of 6 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
3 
 
which the Court construes as claims against We llpath, Inc.  While Thornton alleges that 
W. Whitney is employed by We llpath, he has not alleged any substantive facts vis-à-vis 
Wellpath that would state a claim upon which relief may be granted against that entity.   
Next, the Court will dismiss,  without prejudice, Thornton’s remaining official 
capacity claims, which it construes as clai ms against the Commonwealth of Kentucky.  
The Commonwealth is  not subject to suit  for money damages; in fact, the Eleventh 
Amendment deprives  this Court  of subject matter jurisdiction over claims for money 
damages against a state and its agencies.  Ernst v. Rising, 427 F.3d 351, 358 (6th Cir. 
2005).  Therefore, the rest of Thornton’s official capacity claims are unavailing. 
 That leaves Thornton’s individual capacity claims against the four named 
defendants.  The Court will first dismiss, with prejudice, Thornton’s claims against Denise 
Burkett.  Although Thornton alleges that Burkett is the “Medical Services Director” at the 
KDOC, he does not assert any substantive allegations agains t her.  Rather, Thornton 
suggests he is pursuing claims against Burkett simply because she is a supervisor at the 
KDOC.  The United States Court of Appeals fo r the Sixth Circuit, however, has made it 
clear that liability “must be based on more than respondeat superior, or the right to control 
employees.”  Johnson v. Aramark, 482 F. App’x 992, 993 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Shehee 
v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999)).  Thus, Thornton has failed to state a claim 
against Burkett.  
 The Court will also dismiss, without pr ejudice, Thornton’s claims against Dr. 
Srinath Kamineni and PA Justin B. Cecil.  Thornton does allege that each of these 
individuals are medical providers at “UK Healthcare/KY Clinic Orthopedic Surgery – 
Sports.”  However, Thornton does not specific ally allege what each of these individuals 
Case: 0:24-cv-00053-DLB-CJS     Doc #: 21     Filed: 12/11/24     Page: 3 of 6 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
4 
 
did or failed to do to cause him harm.  Instead, Thornton generically refers to his alleged 
interactions with “the specialist.”  ( See Doc. # 1 at 4-5).  By fr aming his allegations this 
way, it is not clear whether Thornton is describing his interactions with Dr. Kamineni, PA 
Cecil, or some other medical provider.  ( See Doc. # 1 at 4-5).  And while Thornton 
attaches some of his medical records to  his complaint, thos e documents include the 
names of both providers, as well as what  appears to be the signature of another APRN.  
(See Doc. # 1-2 at 3-4).   Therefore, the Court  cannot link Thornton’s allegations to a 
specific defendant.  Ultimately, the complaint form that Thornton completed directed him 
to “describe how each defendant violated his ri ghts,” and he failed to clearly do so with 
respect to Dr. Kamineni and PA Cecil.  ( See Doc. # 1 at 4).  As a result, the Court will 
dismiss, without prejudice, Thornton’s claims against these defendants.   
 The Court will, however, allow Thornton to proceed with his individual capacity 
claims against APRN W. Whitney, the sole remaining defendant.  Construing Thornton’s 
complaint broadly, it appears that he is re ferring to APRN W. Whitney when describing 
his interactions with “nursing staff” and the alleged instructions he received regarding the 
removal of his bandage and ability to shower and clean his arm after he returned to the 
EKCC.  ( See Doc. # 1 at 4-5).  Si nce Thornton is incarcerated and proceeding as a 
pauper, the Court will direct the Clerk’s Office and the United States Marshals Service to 
serve defendant Whitney with a summons and c opy of the complaint on Thornton’s 
behalf.  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).  Defendant Whitney will then 
be required to respond to Thornton’s complaint within 21 days after being served.  
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:  
(1) Thornton’s official capacity claims are DISMISSED without prejudice; 
Case: 0:24-cv-00053-DLB-CJS     Doc #: 21     Filed: 12/11/24     Page: 4 of 6 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
5 
 
(2) Thornton’s individual capacity claims against defendant Denise Burkett 
are DISMISSED with prejudice; 
(3) Thornton’s individual capacity  claims against defendants Srinath 
Kamineni and Justin B. Cecil are DISMISSED without prejudice; 
(4) That said, Thornton may PROCEED with his individual capacity claims 
against defendant APRN W. Whitney.  Since Whit ney is the sole remaining defendant, 
the Clerk’s Office is directed to TERMINATE all other defendants from this action; 
(5) A Deputy Clerk shall prepare one Service Packet for service upon 
defendant APRN W. Whitney.  T he address for this defendant is  the Eastern Kentucky 
Correctional Complex, 200 Road to Justice, West Liberty, Kentucky 41472.  The Service 
Packet shall include: 
a. a completed summons form; 
b. a copy of Thornton’s complaint at Doc. # 1; 
c. a copy of this Order; and 
d. a completed USM Form 285; 
(6) The Deputy Clerk shall send the Service Packet to the United States 
Marshals Service in Lexington, Kentucky and note the date of delivery on the docket; 
(7) The United States Marshals Servic e is directed to personally serve 
defendant APRN W. Whitney at the Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex, 200 Road 
to Justice, West Liberty, Kentucky 41472, and it should do so through arrangement with 
appropriate officials at that institution; 
(8) Within 21 days after being served, defendant APRN W. Whitney must 
answer Thornton’s complaint.  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12; and 
Case: 0:24-cv-00053-DLB-CJS     Doc #: 21     Filed: 12/11/24     Page: 5 of 6 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
6 
 
(9) Thornton’s motion for an extension of time (Doc. # 18) is DENIED as 
baseless.  At this point, the next step in the litigation is for defendant APRN W. Whitney 
to answer Thornton’s complaint.  Once that responsive pleading is filed, the Court will 
issue a new Order regarding the next steps in this case.  
This 11th day of December 2024.        
 
         
 
 
 
G:\Judge-DLB\DATA\ORDERS\PSO Orders\Thornton 24-053 Order.docx 
     
Case: 0:24-cv-00053-DLB-CJS     Doc #: 21     Filed: 12/11/24     Page: 6 of 6 - Page
ID#: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight