The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gilbert, District Judge
Plaintiff Rodderick Sisson, an inmate in the Pinckneyville Correctional Facility, brings this action for deprivation 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). Upon careful review of the complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; parts of this action are subject to summary dismissal.
Sisson alleges that on the June 12, 2007, he was transported in an Illinois Department of Correction vehicle driven by Defendant Runge. Defendant Clark, who was driving for Specialized Services Group, was negligent when his truck crashed into power lines, causing two poles to fall with live wires. The crash caused the Illinois Department of Corrections bus to crash into one of the poles on the ground. Sisson alleges that this negligence is a violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment. However, a defendant can never be held liable under § 1983 for negligence. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986); Zarnes v. Rhodes, 64 F.3d 285, 290 (7th Cir. 1995). Thus, this claim against Runge and Clark will be dismissed with prejudice.
CLAIM 2-DELAY/DENIAL OF MEDICAL CARE
Sisson alleges that, following the accident, his medical treatment was improperly delayed. He claims this delay was a violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment.
A deliberate indifference claim requires both an objectively serious risk of harm and a subjectively culpable state of mind. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994); Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2005). A deliberate indifference claim premised upon inadequate medical treatment requires, to satisfy the objective element, a medical condition "that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would perceive the need for a doctor's attention." Greeno, 414 F.3d at 653. The subjective component of a deliberate indifference claim requires that the prison official knew of "a substantial risk of harm to the inmate and disregarded the risk." Id.; Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Mere medical malpractice or a disagreement with a doctor's medical judgment is not deliberate indifference. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 107 (1976); Greeno, 414 F.3d at 653; Estate of Cole by Pardue v. Fromm, 94 F.3d 254, 261 (7th Cir. 1996). Still, a plaintiff's receipt of some medical care does not automatically defeat a claim of deliberate indifference if a fact finder could infer the treatment was "so blatantly inappropriate as to evidence intentional mistreatment likely to seriously aggravate" a medical condition. Snipes v. DeTella, 95 F.3d 586, 592 (7th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted).
Sisson states that Defendant Obadina did not see him for six months, did not give him a timely examination, failed to follow up and inform Sisson of his condition, and failed to send Sisson outside to receive proper care. Sisson claims that Defendant Gerst did not x-ray him after the accident or when he was complaining of pain, nor did Gerst see Sisson in over eight months. Sisson also claims that Gerst rushed Sisson out of the medical office, yelled at Sisson, and was unconcerned with suffering from the pain in his back. Sisson also argues that but for the actions of Obadina and ...