The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sue E. Myerscough, U.S. District Judge:
Tuesday, 13 March, 2012 09:08:42 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated in Dixon Correctional Center, pursues claims arising from alleged indifference to Plaintiff's diabetes while he was incarcerated at Jacksonville Correctional Center. 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 has diabetes. During Plaintiff's incarceration in Jacksonville Correctional Center, apparently beginning in November 2008, Plaintiff saw the doctor to request larger boots or medical shoes, because Plaintiff's shoes were too small and were rubbing on his heel. According to the attachments to the Complaint, that request was denied in February 2009. In order to get the help he needed, Plaintiff stopped taking his insulin and wound up in the hospital in April 2009, again according to the attachments to Plaintiff's Complaint. By then Plaintiff had an open sore on his foot. According to the attachments to Plaintiff's Complaint, a referral for medical shoes was approved in April 2009.*fn1
The statute of limitations for Plaintiff's federal claims is two years from the date Plaintiff knew or should have known that his constitutional rights were violated. Evans v. City of Chicago, 434 F.3d 916, 934 (7th Cir. 2006). The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, but a court can dismiss a complaint on statute of limitations grounds if the conclusion is "apparent" and "unmistakable." See Walker v. Thomas, 288 F.3d 1005, 1010 (7th Cir. 2002).
Plaintiff's claims arise from events which occurred from November 2008 through April 2009. He therefore had until April 2011 to file his claims. He did not file this case until December 2011, eight months too late. Even allowing a liberal time for exhausting administrative remedies, an issue which Plaintiff does not address, Plaintiff's claim is too late.*fn2 Johnson v. Rivera, 272 F.3d 519, ...