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.

Hawkins v. Illinois Dep't of Corrections

September 23, 2009

ROBERT E. HAWKINS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Centralia Correctional Center, brings this action for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to receive medical attention and monetary damages for his pain and suffering. 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, 590 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A complaint is plausible on its face "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Although the Court is obligated to accept factual allegations as true, some factual allegations may be so sketchy or implausible that they fail to provide sufficient notice of a plaintiff's claim. Brooks v. Ross, No. 08-4286, 2009 WL 2535731, at *5 (7th Cir. Aug. 20, 2009). Additionally, Courts "should not accept as adequate abstract recitations of the elements of a cause of action or conclusory legal statements." Id. At the same time, however, the factual allegations of a pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Service, No. 06-4260, 2009 WL 2498580, at *2 (7th Cir. Aug. 18, 2009).

THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiff contends that he did not receive adequate medical care while confined at Robinson Correction Center. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Latin examined him upon his arrival at Robinson Correctional Center on July 31, 2008. Until this date, plaintiff had been taking "Glipizide" for his diabetes. During this examination, Plaintiff informed Dr. Latin that he "could not feel his toes or the front part of his foot." Dr. Latin changed Plaintiff's diabetes medication from Glipizide to insulin informing him that the insulin would take care of the numbness that Plaintiff was experiencing in his foot.

After starting on the insulin, Plaintiff asserts that his blood sugar remained very high and the numbness did not go away. According to the complaint and attached exhibits, Plaintiff submitted three "sick call slips" requesting medical attention for his foot. During these sick calls, Plaintiff was examined by an unnamed nurse who determined that Plaintiff did not have to be examined by a medical doctor. Despite not being examined by Dr. Latin (or any other physician), it appears that Dr. Latin increased Plaintiff's "Galverpert [sic] pill" in response to Plaintiff's complaint that the numbness had spread to his lower leg.

On November 26, 2008, after Plaintiff filed the instant complaint, he went to the Health Care Unit regarding his foot. This time when the nurse examined his foot she said "it was really bad." Plaintiff was admitted to the health care unit and given medication for his foot.

Plaintiff's primary claim is that Dr. Latin failed to conduct adequate follow-up care with Plaintiff after changing his medication. Plaintiff's secondary claim appears to be that the unnamed nurse who examined him between July 31 and November 26, 2008, failed to let him see a medical doctor. Finally, Plaintiff appears to claim that other forms of treatment are ...


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.