United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
JUAN PAGAN, No. M43947, Plaintiff,
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, and DR. SHAH, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN CHIEF JUDGE.
Juan Pagan is an inmate currently housed at Pickneyville
Correctional Center. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
Plaintiff brings this action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights with respect to his medical care while
housed at Robinson Correctional Center. Plaintiff originally
filed his Complaint on October 9, 2015. (Doc. 1). It was
dismissed without prejudice on November 3, 2015. (Doc. 7).
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on November 16, 2016.
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The
Court is required to dismiss any portion of the complaint
that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or asks for money damages
from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
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). Frivolousness is an
objective standard that refers to a claim that any reasonable
person would find meritless. Lee v. Clinton, 209
F.3d 1025, 1026-27 (7th Cir. 2000). 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. At
this juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se
complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v.
Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir.
August 28, 2014, Plaintiff played basketball on the yard at
Robinson. (Doc. 8, p. 5). He suffered a severe sprain in his
left foot. (Doc. 8, p. 5). While he received first aid, he
had to wait three days to see a doctor with only an elastic
bandage and OTC pain relievers. (Doc. 8, p. 5). Plaintiff saw
Defendant Shah, who taught Plaintiff how to avoid putting
pressure on his foot. (Doc. 8, p. 5). Shah provided no other
treatment at that time. (Doc. 8, p. 5). Shah reviewed the
x-ray with Plaintiff on September 12, 2014 and told Plaintiff
that his foot was not fractured, only sprained. (Doc. 8, p.
5). Plaintiff alleges that a subsequent x-ray from March 6,
2015 shows a fracture of the second metatarsal. (Doc. 8, p.
Shah ordered another x-ray on October 24, 2014, he
represented that the x-ray likewise showed no facture or
dislocation. (Doc. 8, p. 5). It also appears that someone
issued Plaintiff walking crutches and special boots. (Doc. 8,
p. 5). Plaintiff was allowed to keep his job as a porter.
(Doc. 8, p. 5).
requested an MRI, but was denied. (Doc. 8, p. 6). He also
requested to see an orthopedic surgeon for an evaluation, but
that request was also denied. (Doc. 8, p. 6). Plaintiff
cannot walk or stand for long periods of time without pain.
(Doc. 8, p. 6). Plaintiff’s foot is also unstable, and
he alleges that there is a visible crack in his middle toe.
(Doc. 8, p. 6). Health care has not addressed
Plaintiff’s requests for follow up care. (Doc. 8, p.
the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint because he
failed to request a remedy, as required by Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8(a)(3). (Doc. 7). Plaintiff has now
corrected that error and requested compensatory damages, as
well as injunctive relief. (Doc. 8, p. 7).
reviewing the Amended Complaint, the Court finds that
Plaintiff has stated one Count against Shah, which shall be
used in all further filings and documents in this Court:
Count 1: Shah was deliberately indifferent
to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of
the Eighth Amendment.
Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from being subjected to
cruel and unusual punishment. U.S. Const., amend. VIII.
See also Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 439 (7th
Cir. 2010). Eighth Amendment protection extends to conditions
of confinement that pose a substantial risk of serious harm,
including health and safety. See Estate of
Miller, ex rel. Bertram v. Tobiasz, 680 F.3d 984
(7th Cir. 2012). Prison officials can violate the Eighth
Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual
punishment when their conduct demonstrates “deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners.”
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976).
medical condition need not be life-threatening to be serious;
rather, it can be a condition that would result in further
significant injury or unnecessary and wanton infliction of
pain if not treated. Gayton v. McCoy, 593 F.3d 610,
620 (7th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff has alleged that he suffers
consistent pain while walking and standing as a result of his
ankle injury. This makes his allegation ...