Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Tindall v. Lashbrook

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

December 15, 2016

RICHARD TINDALL, Plaintiff,
v.
JACQUELINE LASHBROOK, MICHAEL SCOTT, and CHRISTINE BROWN Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          MICHAEL J. REAGAN U.S. Chief District Judge

         Plaintiff Richard Tindall, an inmate in Pickneyville Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on episodes of deliberate indifference. Plaintiff's Complaint requests declaratory relief, fees and costs, and punitive damages. (Doc. 1, p. 11). 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). 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. 2009).

         Upon careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; this action is subject to summary dismissal.

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff transferred into to Pickneyville on July 13, 2016 from Western Illinois Correctional Center. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff suffers from an anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, manic depression, and paranoid schizophrenia. (Id.). Plaintiff had been taking Buspar to control his anxiety. (Id.). Upon transferring, Plaintiff wanted to see a psychiatrist because he believed that his mood stabilizers and anti-psychotic medication should be restarted. (Id.). Plaintiff spoke with a psychologist, Ms. Hayes, who told Plaintiff he would be put on the call list to see a psychiatrist immediately. (Id.). At the time he filed his Complaint, more than three months later, Plaintiff still had not seen a psychiatrist. (Id.). He has made 10-15 written requests to the mental health department and made over 50 verbal requests to nurses and health care staff to be placed on the call line to see a psychiatrist. (Id.). None of the written requests are in the record.

         Plaintiff was also not given Buspar from the time of his arrival at the prison until October 15, 2016. (Doc. 1, pp. 6, 8). As a result of this delay, Plaintiff suffered from extreme anxiety, and daily panic attacks. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff's paranoia and psychotic delusions, including audio and visual hallucinations, have also been aggravated by the lack of treatment. (Doc. 1, p. 7).

         Discussion

         Based on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into 1 count. The parties and the Court will use this designation in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. Plaintiff's Complaint will be dismissed at this time with leave to amend.

         Count 1 - Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical need of mental illness ...


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.