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.

Holmes v. Walker

July 27, 2009

MONTRELL HOLMES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ROGER WALKER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff Montrell Holmes, an inmate at the Pinckneyville 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 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

Holmes alleges that on October 16, 2007, Defendant Gerst treated him in an unprofessional manner. Gerst failed to allow Holmes to adequately explain the problem with his arm and did not share the results of an x-ray he ordered. Despite Holmes' misgivings, it appears that he was prescribed medication as a result of this visit. Holmes then alleges that Defendant Knopp gave him the wrong medication. When he complained, Knopp said she would consult with Dr. Obadina, but never returned with the correct medication. Holmes claims he was not seen again until November 15, 2007.

Holmes also alleges that Defendant Obadina misdiagnosed the pain in his right arm as a cyst on November 15, 2007. Holmes claims Obadina prescribed ineffective medication. Holmes alleges that Defendant Hill refused to give him the prescribed pain medication on November 23, 2007, because he did not sign his $2.00 co-pay form. Holmes believes that failure to give him his medication constitutes deliberate indifference, and that Hill should have sent him to an outside hospital for treatment. Holmes further alleges that on November 26, 2007, Defendant Knopp treated him in an unprofessional manner and failed to give him his pain pills.

On December 12, 2007, Holmes had surgery at an outside hospital. Holmes alleges that over the course of three surgeries in December 2007, bone fragments were removed from his arm. His arm was also infected by the time he had surgery. Holmes alleges that the delay from the time Obadina misdiagnosed him until his surgery caused him excruciating pain, that he had limited use of his arm during this time, and that he was not prescribed proper medication for pain. He further alleges that he was not given proper post-surgical treatment because Obadina delayed sending him back for a follow up MRI.

Holmes also alleges that he received inadequate physical therapy from Defendant Dan. He claims he was taken off the physical therapy line prematurely, and that he was not given any instructions on how to continue to care for his arm on his own. Holmes claims his arm is still weak and unable to lift more than ten pounds.

COUNT 1

Holmes alleges deliberate indifference to his medical needs by the medical staff at Pinckneyville Correction Center for failure to diagnosis him in a timely matter, failure to medicate him properly, and failure to provide ...


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.