The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murphy, District Judge
Plaintiff, a person civilly confined at the Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks damages for alleged deliberate indifference to his medical need (rash in his genital area) by prison staff at the Big Muddy Correctional Center (BMCC) in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:
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). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007). Upon careful review of the complaint and the supporting exhibits, the Court finds that the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A .
Plaintiff alleges that in December 2005, he filed a request for medical service concerning "a rash in [his] genital area." In response to this request, Plaintiff was taken to Defendants Fred and Vaughn, identified in the complaint as nurses. He claims that Defendants Fred and Vaughn refused to examine him. Despite this,he managed to secure a label for a prescription which he took to Fred. Fred, however, refused to fill the prescription explaining that Plaintiff did not have the correct prescription and should not be using the requested medication. Plaintiff claims that Fred violated his constitutional rights by refusing to refill the prescription.
Plaintiff asserts that in January 2006, he "continued to have discrepancies with his medication" and that it was not until January 24 - 26, that he was able to resolve the problem with his medication which, according to the complaint, was due to his prescription being expired. He states that on February 4, 2006, he was examined by a doctor and re-issued a prescription for Desenex Max.*fn1
Plaintiff shaved his genital area in January or February in an attempt to get the prescribed medication in closer contact with his skin.
Plaintiff asserts that on February 8, 2006, Defendant Holmes issued him a "plain white pill bottle filled with some kind of cream." Defendant Holmes informed Plaintiff that the cream was Desenex Max and that the pharmacy had received a bulk shipment of the cream in lieu of individual tubes. Plaintiff, however, did not believe Defendant Holmes because ...