United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN Chief Judge United States District Court
who was incarcerated at Vandalia Correctional Center
("Vandalia") at the time he filed this suit, has
brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. He claims that Defendants were
deliberately indifferent to a serious medical condition. This
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
§ 1915A, the Court is required to screen prisoner
complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must 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 "no
reasonable person could suppose to have any merit."
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. 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 plaintiffs 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 Arnett v.
Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011);
Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816,
821 (7th Cir. 2009).
fully considering the factual allegations in Plaintiffs
Complaint, the Court concludes that this action is subject to
states that he was injured on April 16, 2016, when he hit his
leg on a trash trailer while he was working at his prison
job. (Doc. 1, p. 5). He sought medical help on April 24,
2016. At that time, the unidentified nurse told Plaintiff to
"keep an eye on" the wound. Id. The next
day, Plaintiffs leg "looked like a softball, " so
he again went to the health care unit. Id.
April 27, 2016, a nurse cut open and drained the wound.
Plaintiff returned to health care the following day and had
the dressing changed. On April 29, 2016, Plaintiff returned
for another dressing change, and fluid "sprayed"
out of the wound due to the built-up pressure. Id.
He was then sent to an outside hospital.
Fayette County Hospital, Plaintiff was admitted and treated
with intravenous antibiotics. An unidentified hospital
staffer told Plaintiff that he should have been admitted a
week earlier due to his condition.
Plaintiff was released from the hospital, he was housed in
the prison's health care unit until May 26, 2016, when he
was sent back to the regular housing unit. He was taken off
antibiotics. However, at the time he filed the Complaint,
Plaintiff claimed his leg wound still had not healed.
Further, Fayette County Hospital personnel had recommended
that Plaintiff should return every week for follow-up at the
wound clinic, but Vandalia staff refused to take Plaintiff
back for those checkups. (Doc. 1, p. 5).
names as Defendants Vandalia Warden Foster, Dr. Codwell, Unit
Administrator Klein, and Nurse Supervisor Weathers. However,
the statement of claim does not identify which, if any, of
these individuals was responsible for Plaintiffs treatment.
in the "Grievance Procedure" section of the
Complaint, Plaintiff states that he did not present the facts
relating to his complaint to the prisoner grievance
procedure. (Doc. 1, p. 4). Explaining his failure to submit a
grievance, Plaintiff writes, "It is a medical
seeks monetary damages. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
Review Pursuant to 28 ...