The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sue E. Myerscough, U.S. District Judge:
E-FILED Thursday, 26 April, 2012 03:50:08 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated in Western Illinois Correctional Center, pursues claims arising from a lack of medical care and retaliation for filing grievances. The case is before the Court for a merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
LEGAL STANDARD 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
3:11-cv-03373-SEM-BGC # 60 Page 2 of 15
"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).
At the merit review hearing on December 7, 2011 the Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. In response, Plaintiff filed an "Amended Statement to Claim," which the Court construes as an Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has been advised several times that his amended complaint would supersede his original complaint in its entirety. Accordingly, the Court considers only the allegations in Plaintiff's amended complaint and the exhibits submitted with that amended complaint.
Plaintiff alleges that he is a disabled veteran. Over 200 centimeters of his intestines have been removed, along with the right side of his colon. He also suffers liver, gallbladder, and kidney damage; a fused spinal disc; chronic problems with his left hip and knee; and nodules in his lungs that allegedly need immediate investigation.
In January, 2011 Plaintiff was incarcerated in Stateville Correctional Center. An unidentified doctor at Stateville Correctional Center allegedly denied Plaintiff a soy-free diet and medications for his pain, vomiting, and diarrhea.
In February, 2011 Plaintiff was transferred to Western Illinois Correctional Center. He was allegedly "very sick, vomiting, in pain, and bleed[ing] in [his] stool and urine." (Amended Complaint, p. 2). His complaints were ignored by unidentified persons.
On February 21, 2011 Plaintiff was transferred to Lawrence Correctional Center, where he was again refused necessary medical treatment by unidentified persons. He did receive x-rays, but no soy-free diet, medication, or medical treatment.
On June 29, 2011 Plaintiff was transferred back to Western Illinois Correctional Center. He again informed the medical staff that he was very sick and was a carrier of infectious diseases. Nurses Still and Hazelray revoked Plaintiff's low bunk and special shoes permit and denied him medical treatment for his vomiting, bloody stools, and urine, kidney stones, chronic pain, and other medical ...