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.

Wells v. Ryker

April 26, 2010

CRANDALL WELLS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
LEE RYKER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Lawrence 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, 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, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 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, 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).

THE COMPLAINT*fn1

Plaintiff alleges that on October 21, 2008, he slipped and fell while exiting the shower at Lawrence Correctional Center. Plaintiff believed at first that he was uninjured. However, when he later woke up from a nap he was experiencing great pain in his back. Between the date of the injury and December 13, 2008, Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Dr. Fenoglio on two different occasions. The first time, Dr. Fenoglio prescribed Plaintiff some pain medication (naproxen) and a lower gallery permit. Because Plaintiff reported hearing a popping noise when he fell, Plaintiff requested, but was refused, an x-ray. The second time, Dr. Fenoglio performed some tests and concluded that Plaintiff had a ruptured disc. Dr. Fenoglio prescribed Plaintiff some stronger pain medication (tramadol). Although Plaintiff asked about having an x-ray, an MRI, or surgery to repair the disc, Dr. Fenoglio told Plaintiff to "wait and see what happens."

Plaintiff asserts that Dr. Fenoglio refused to see him between December 13, 2008 and May 8, 2009. When Dr. Fenoglio did see Plaintiff again, he placed him on "stronger medication," but Plaintiff contends that all of the medication caused his blood pressure to increase and, therefore, he was placed on blood pressure medication. Plaintiff contends that he failed to get adequate follow-up monitoring for his blood pressure condition.

Additionally, Plaintiff states that in November 2009 he was found guilty of a disciplinary ticket for "failure to report to work." Plaintiff states that he was unable to work due to his back condition, but Dr. Fenoglio failed to issue him a medical lay-in. As a result of the disciplinary ticket, Plaintiff was placed on commissary restriction for one month and "no pay" status for 60 days. Although Dr. Fenoglio ultimately gave Plaintiff a medical lay-in order, it came too late for this disciplinary action.

Finally, in September and October 2009, Dr. Fenoglio sent Plaintiff to a hospital for an MRI. It appears that Plaintiff has a ruptured disc. While Plaintiff has been receiving physical therapy for the condition, Dr. Fenoglio states that he is unable to send Plaintiff ...


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.