Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Gills v. Funk

United States District Court, Seventh Circuit

August 30, 2013

JARYAN GILLS, # R07179, Plaintiff,


G. PATRICK MURPHY, District Judge.

Plaintiff Jaryan Gills, an inmate currently housed in Lawrence Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, regarding the medical care he received (or was denied while he was housed at Menard Correctional Center between June 6, 2011, and April 25, 2013.

This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which 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 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007. The claim of entitlement to relief must cross "the line between possibility and plausibility. Id. at 557. 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. Additionally, Courts "should not accept as adequate abstract recitations of the elements of a cause of action or conclusory legal statements." Id. 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.

Upon careful review of the complaint and supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under Section 1915A and dismiss the complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend.

The Complaint

According to the complaint (Doc. 1, prior to Plaintiff's arrival at Menard Correctional Center ("Menard" in June 2011, doctors at the Cook County Jail and Stateville Correctional Center had recommended surgery to remove four bullets that are lodged in his legs, and additional surgery to repair an inguinal hernia. The bullets and the hernia cause Plaintiff severe pain and difficulty walking and climbing stairs, which has not been alleviated by the medication and treatment offered during the time he was at Menard. Plaintiff fears that if his ailments go untreated-if he is not give the recommended surgeries-he could die.

Plaintiff alleges that the ten named defendants, as well as unidentified others, were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, despite all having the authority to make recommendations and final decision[s] concerning" his medical care (Doc. 1, p. 7, ¶ 32. In the complaint, Plaintiff asserts that each defendant had "personal knowledge and involvement" (Doc. 1, p. 3, and that he "had face to face conversations with nearly all the defendant(s written many letters... complaining and requesting medical treatments" (Doc. 1, p. 7, ¶ 31. Medical records, letters and grievances are submitted in support of the claims ( see Doc. 1, pp. 12-32.

Based on the allegations of the complaint, and without regard to the merit of any claim, the Court finds it convenient to summarize the pro se action in a single count:

Count 1: Between June 6, 2011, and April 25, 2013, Defendants Arthur Funk, Louis Shicker, S.N. Waobais, Robert L. Shearing, Nikki Malley, Fahim, Shapard, Fuentes, Harrington, Atchison and other unknown parties were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff Gills' serious ...

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.