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.

Ron Flemming v. Donald Gaetz

September 14, 2012

RON FLEMMING, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DONALD GAETZ, SHAH VIPIN, MRS. BROWN, DIRECTOR GODINEZ, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: G. Patrick Murphy United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MURPHY, District Judge:

This matter is before the Court for threshold review of Plaintiff's civil-rights complaint seeking recovery pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center, Pinckneyville, Illinois, asserts that he has been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment because the defendants have failed to adequately treat his hernia, which has resulted in extreme pain, discomfort, nausea, and possible bowel obstruction.

For purposes of review, the Court has divided Plaintiff's claims into separate counts. In Count 1, Plaintiff alleges that defendants Mrs. Brown, head nurse, and Shah Vipin, head doctor, were negligent and exhibited reckless disregard for the seriousness of Plaintiff's hernia. In Count 2, Plaintiff alleges that defendant Donald Gaetz, Chief Administrative Officer at Pinckneyville Correctional Center, failed to protect Plaintiff from inadequate medical care and was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's medical needs after he was denied care by Brown and Vipin. In Count 3, Plaintiff alleges that defendants Godinez, Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections, and the Illinois Department of Corrections violated the Eighth Amendment by denying medical care and failing to protect Plaintiff.

Threshold Review

"A provision added to the Judicial Code by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 requires the district judge to screen prisoner complaints at the earliest opportunity and dismiss the complaint, in whole or part, if . . . it 'fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.'" Sanders v. Sheahan, 198 F.3d 626 (7th Cir.1999) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)).

Title 28 of the U.S. Code, § 1915A, 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.

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 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 580 (2007). Conversely, 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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

Although the Court is obligated to accept factual allegations as true, see Smith v. Peters, 631 F.3d 418, 419 (7th Cir.2011), 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). The Seventh Circuit has directed that courts "should not accept as adequate abstract recitations of the elements of a cause of action or conclusory legal statements." Brooks, 578 F.3d at 581. At the same time, however, the factual allegations of a pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir.2009).

Summary of Counts

Plaintiff claims that he requested, but was denied, medical attention for pain from a hernia, and for possible bowel obstruction. The Eighth Amendment prohibits the government from inflicting "cruel and unusual punishments." U.S. CONST. amend. VIII. The denial of medical care may cause "pain and suffering which no one suggests would serve any penological purpose." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976). Therefore, "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the 'unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.'" Id. at 104 (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173 (1976)). In this case, Plaintiff's ...


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.