Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Blake Pilcher, # S-13431 v. Marney Stoneburner-Raber

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


October 17, 2012

BLAKE PILCHER, # S-13431, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MARNEY STONEBURNER-RABER, JOHN MONNET, STEVE LANGHURST AND JAY BELL, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge:

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Graham Correctional Center, has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an incident occurring at Effingham County Jail. Plaintiff claims that officials at Effingham were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical condition. More specifically, Plaintiff complains that while exercising in his cell, he struck his head on the elevated box containing a television, causing a cut in his scalp. Jail guards advised a cold compress. Plaintiff requested a physician. Within three and a half hours of the incident jail personnel gave him Tylenol and within 5 hours the wound was cleaned with peroxide. It appears that Plaintiff filed a grievance immediately, as he states he received no written response from the jail administrator, Defendant Stoneburner-Raber, but was taken to a physician within twenty-four hours of the incident.

As to the remaining defendants, Plaintiff does not state in what manner each of these defendants is personally responsible for violating his constitutional rights. He states in a conclusory fashion that Defendant Monnet denied him his rights. Plaintiff believes he has a right to see a physician right away and to receive immediate medical attention.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to conduct a prompt threshold review of the complaint. Accepting Plaintiff's allegations as true, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to articulate a colorable federal cause of action against Defendants for deliberate indifference to medical needs.

In order to state a claim of cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, a prisoner must allege "'acts and omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs,'" Benson v. Cady, 761 F.2d 335, 340 (7th Cir. 1985), quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 292, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). "[T]he infliction of suffering on prisoners can be found to violate the Eighth Amendment only if that infliction is either deliberate, or reckless in the criminal law sense." Duckworth [v. Franzen], 780 F.2d [645,] 652-53 [(7th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 107 S.Ct. 71 (1986)]. Negligence, gross negligence, or even "recklessness" as that term is used in tort cases, is not enough. Id. at 653.

Shockley v. Jones, 823 F.2d 1068, 1072 (7th Cir. 1987).

Plaintiff has not adequately stated a serious medical condition nor pleaded facts indicating that any defendant violated his Eighth Amendment protections. Accordingly, these claims shall be dismissed without prejudice.

Disposition

Plaintiff's claims against all Defendants for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and will be DISMISSED from this action without prejudice. Defendants STONEBURNER-RABER, MONNET, LANGHURST and BELL shall be dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiff is advised that the dismissal of this action will count as one of his three allotted "strikes" under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Michael J. Reagan United States District Judge

20121017

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.