The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sue E. Myerscough, U.S. District Judge:
Monday, 19 September, 2011 05:28:14 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
Plaintiff Lamont McCauley, proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated in Western Illinois Correctional Center, pursues claims arising from the denial of medical care. The case is before the Court for a merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
The Court is required by § 1915A to review a Complaint filed by a prisoner against a governmental entity or officer and, through such process, to identify cognizable claims, dismissing any claim that is "frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted . . . ". A hearing is held if necessary to assist the Court in this review, but, in this case, the Court concludes that no hearing is necessary. The Complaint and its attachments are clear enough on their own for this Court to perform its merit review of Plaintiff's Complaint.
The review standard under § 1915A is the same as the notice pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Zimmerman v. Tribble, 226 F.3d 568, 571 (7th Cir. 2000). To state a claim, the allegations must set forth a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Factual allegations must give enough detail to give "'fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" EEOC v. Concentra Health Serv., Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir. 2007), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)(add'l citation omitted). The factual "allegations must plausibly suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief, raising that possibility above a 'speculative level.'" Id., quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged . . . . Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009), citing Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555-56. However, pro se pleadings are liberally construed when applying this standard. Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 546 (7th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff arrived at Western Illinois Correctional Center in March, 2010. During his processing, he informed Defendant Dr. Shah and the nurses that he had a stent in his right kidney which needed to be removed, and that he was experiencing severe abdominal pain and difficulty urinating. After waiting months for medical treatment, Plaintiff filed a grievance, which Defendant Goins denied, citing the health care unit's assessment that Plaintiff was suffering from a liver infection which required time to resolve and that an ultrasound had shown that the stent did not need removal. The denial of the grievance was affirmed by the Administrative Review Board.
Plaintiff's pain and difficulties continued unabated. Eventually Dr. Shah agreed to send him to a specialist, but Defendant Fuqua allegedly denied or somehow interfered with that attempt. Plaintiff was ultimately approved to see the specialist, who recommended surgery to remove Plaintiff's right kidney and stent. Plaintiff had the surgery at St. John's Hospital on February 28, 2011. He allegedly woke up three weeks later, only to learn that the surgery had lasted 14 hours. He later heard that his colon had been damaged and had to be repaired, and that "his gall bladder and over twenty pounds of [his] intestines [were] removed" during the surgery. Plaintiff's attempts to obtain his medical records to determine exactly what happened have been unsuccessful.
Plaintiff still suffers from "chronic abdominal pains, trouble urinating, passing out cause of pain, panic attacks, insomnia, depression, frequent headaches, right testicle hurts, vomiting, low body temperature (feeling cold all the time), hurts to stand or lye down straight, and constant aweful gas."
Plaintiff states an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs against Defendants Dr. Shah and Fuqua. Plaintiff's description of his condition, surgery, and pain give rise to an inference that his medical needs were and are serious. An inference of deliberate indifference arises against Dr. Shah, who allegedly prescribed only pain medication and delayed sending Plaintiff to a specialist. An inference of deliberate indifference also ...