United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, Chief District Judge
Arthur Chambers, an inmate in Lawrence Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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
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). 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).
careful review of the complaint and any supporting exhibits,
the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority
under § 1915A; this complaint is subject to dismissal.
has brought suit against Vitterio Guerriero and Gary Carr,
both doctors at Lawrence County Memorial Hospital. (Doc. 1,
p. 1-2). On June 23, 2015, Plaintiff had surgery at Lawrence
County to remove his gallbladder. (Doc. 1, p. 5). During the
surgery, Plaintiff’s artery was nicked. (Doc. 1, p. 5).
Plaintiff’s grievance indicates that another surgery
was required to stop the bleeding. (Doc. 1, p. 8). Plaintiff
alleges that he now suffers from constant pain, irreparable
damages, and other symptoms as a result of the doctors’
negligence. (Doc. 1, p. 5).
on the allegations of the complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into two counts. The
parties and the Court will use these designations in all
future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a
judicial officer of this Court. However, neither claim
survives threshold review.
1 - Deliberate indifference claim against both defendants for
nicking Plaintiff’s artery during surgery to remove his
2 - State law negligence claim for improperly performing