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.

Munson v. Feinerman

February 6, 2009

JAMES MUNSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DR. A. D. FEINERMAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Menard Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks damages for alleged violations of his Eight Amendment right to adequate medical treatment and his right to privacy. This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:

(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). 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)

THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges that he is HIV-positive. Plaintiff states that on September 5, 2007, he was given his "regular medication" along with "two extra pills" by a medical technician. Plaintiff asked the technician about the extra pills and was informed that Defendant Feinerman had prescribed them to go with Plaintiff's "regular medication." Plaintiff further states that on September 17, 2007, he was again given his "regular medication" by a medical technician, but this time he was not provided the "two extra pills." Plaintiff asked the technician about the "extra pills" and was informed that he had been given them in error on September 5 because they were intended for a neighboring inmate. Plaintiff was then informed that the "extra pills" he had taken earlier were Depakene. Plaintiff asserts that this was the fourth time he had been given the wrong medication (or denied his medication).

Plaintiff filed a grievance concerning this matter on September 17. According to exhibits attached to the complaint, Defendant Gladson, Director of Nursing, informed Defendant Feinerman of the medication mix-up on or about September 18, 2007.

Plaintiff states that on September 21, 2007, some lab work was performed and he had his heartbeat and temperature taken. At that time, Plaintiff states that he also told Defendant Feinerman that he was having difficulty urinating, was having headaches, and that the left side of his stomach was hurting. Plaintiff states, however, that Dr. Feinerman did not provided him with any pain medication. According to the complaint, Plaintiff did not see Dr. Feinerman again until the end of November 2007 or the beginning of December 2007. Plaintiff claims that his rights were violated by giving him the wrong medication, by failing to give him pain medication, and by the 60-day gap between his appointments with Dr. Feinerman.

Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that in February 2007, a Medical Technician known to him only as "Jane" violated his right to privacy by "announcing" his HIV-positive status on "the gallery" at Menard Correctional Center.

DISCUSSION

At the outset, the Court notes that Defendant "Jane" was not named as a Defendant in the caption of the complaint as required by Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the Clerk of Court will be ...


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.