The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sue E. Myerscough United States District Judge
Wednesday, 03 October, 2012 08:27:33 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and incarcerated in East Moline Correctional Center, pursues claims arising from the failure to diagnose and treat his diabetes during Plaintiff's incarceration in Logan 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).
In June, 2011, Plaintiff was informed by a doctor at Centralia Correctional Center that Plaintiff was borderline diabetic. Plaintiff was advised to notify health care staff immediately if he experienced dizziness, dry mouth, or frequent urination.
Plaintiff was transferred to Logan Correctional Center in September, 2011. On or about December 1, 2011, Plaintiff felt "very ill with dizz[i]ness, blurred vision, dried mouth, and frequent urination." (Complaint, p. 5, d/e 1.) He wrote to Defendant Lercher, the health care unit administrator but received no response. On some unspecified date, Plaintiff filed an emergency grievance, but Defendants Reynolds and Roberson did not respond, even though procedure required them to respond within 24 hours. On December 13, 2011, during his annual TB test, Plaintiff told Defendant Nurse Weatherford about his symptoms, relaying that he felt very ill. Weatherford allegedly told Plaintiff that he was there for a TB test only, that she "didn't care" about Plaintiff's illness, and that Plaintiff should sign up for sick call. Returning to his unit, Plaintiff stopped an officer and told the officer that he felt as if he would die. Plaintiff was called to the health care unit 20 minutes later, where a test revealed that Plaintiff's blood sugar was 563. Plaintiff was immediately given insulin and admitted to the prison infirmary for observation. Now Plaintiff takes insulin shots twice daily, but he has to give himself the shots, though allegedly never instructed on the proper procedure.
In the context of medical care for prisoners, cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment occurs when a Defendant is deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need of a prisoner:
A prisoner's claim for deliberate indifference must establish "(1) an objectively serious medical condition; and (2) an official's deliberate indifference to that condition." Arnett, 658 F.3d at 750. Deliberate indifference is proven by demonstrating that a prison official knows of a substantial risk of harm to ...