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.

Jones v. Walker

May 18, 2007

GREGORY D. JONES, INMATE #K75759, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MR. WALKER, ALAN UCHTMAN, DR. FINNERMAN, PAM GRUBMAN, AND DEBI MIDDENDORF, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, a former inmate in the Menard Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the amended complaint (Doc. 32) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides, in pertinent part:

(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 on which relief may be granted; or

(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A. An action or claim is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Upon careful review of the amended complaint (Doc. 32) and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds that none of the claims may be dismissed at this point in the litigation.

At the outset, the Court notes that Plaintiff includes in the caption of the amended complaint (Doc. 32), and later in the section entitled "Jurisdiction" of the amended complaint, only three defendants: Debbi Middendorf, Dr. Finnerman, and Pam Grubman. In the caption of his original complaint, Plaintiff named those three defendants and also Mr. Walker and Alan Uchtman. Based on the amended complaint, the Court believes that Plaintiff wishes to proceed against only Defendants Middendorf, Finnerman, and Grubman. Accordingly, Mr. Walker and Alan Uchtman are DISMISSED as defendants from the action.

To facilitate the orderly management of future proceedings in this case, and in accordance with the objectives of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(f) and 10(b), the Court finds it appropriate to break the claims in Plaintiff's pro se complaint and other pleadings into numbered counts, as shown below. The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. The designation of these counts does not constitute an opinion as to their merit.

COUNT 1: Against Defendants Middendorf, Grubman, and Finnerman for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.

COUNT 2: Against Defendants Grubman and Finnerman for unconstitutional retaliation against him for complaining about his treatment.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff suffers from painful bone callouses on his feet. Left untreated, the callouses cause him great pain and difficulty walking. Upon his arrival at Menard Correctional Center in June 2004, Plaintiff received treatment for the bone callouses. An unnamed physician ordered treatment with a pumice stone once a week for four months. Plaintiff received this treatment for only one week.

In August 2004, Plaintiff filed a grievance requesting the ordered treatment, but the grievances were denied by Case Worker Alms (not a defendant) and Defendant Middendorf, based upon their "misinterpretation" of his medical records. Other grievances were ignored. In June 2005, after exhausting his administrative remedies with the Illinois Department of Corrections, Plaintiff filed a civil action in the Illinois Court of Claims regarding his medical treatment. Plaintiff states that after he filed that complaint, he received inferior treatment or was denied treatment altogether in retaliation for the lawsuit. Plaintiff sent letters to Warden Ucthman (not a defendant) and Defendant Pam Grubman, and he was eventually seen by defendant Finnerman. Dr. Finnerman performed only a "cursory" examination and denied treatment. Plaintiff's pain and ability to walk deteriorated during this period. He states that by October 24, 2005, he was completely unable to walk, and had to be taken to the Health Care Unit in a wheelchair. He still did not receive the ...


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.