The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge
Plaintiff Dell Williams, an inmate in the Menard 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, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Upon careful review of the complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; portions of this action are subject to summary dismissal.
Williams initiated this action with a motion for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction (Doc. 1). This pleading was construed as his complaint, and Williams later filed a supplement (Doc. 5) in which he presents one specific claim for relief. The Court and all parties will consider these two pleadings, jointly, as the complaint in this action.
In 2008, Williams was diagnosed with a hernia. Doctors at both Stateville and Pinckneyville told him not to lift anything heavy, and that if the hernia popped out, he should "keep pushing it back in." They also explained to him that the surgery to repair the hernia was expensive, but he could have it done for free at Cook County hospital after his release from prison. After Williams was transferred to Menard, he received similar advice from Defendant Fahim. Fahim also told him to report if the hernia turned red, but that surgery was no longer performed due to the cost.
In early 2010, the hernia ruptured and began to bleed. Williams was examined by a physician's assistant, who told him she would "put [him] in for immediate surgery" or at least to see the doctor, Fahim. Despite filing several sick call requests to see Fahim, Williams did not see the doctor nor receive surgery for his ruptured hernia. At the end of April 2010, Williams was taken to the prison hospital due to the severe pain caused by his hernia. Again, Fahim pushed it back in but would not schedule surgery "due to cost."
Williams alleges, specifically, that Fahim has been deliberately indifferent to his medical needs with respect to his ruptured hernia, in 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 ...