United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL, United States District Judge
Ronnie Parnell, an inmate in Pinckneyville Correctional
Center (“Pinckneyville”), brings this action for
deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff contends Pinckneyville staff
exhibited deliberate indifference to his ongoing hip issues,
in violation of his constitutional rights. In connection with
these claims, Plaintiff sues J. Lashbrook (Pinckneyville
Warden), J. Baldwin (IDOC Director), and Wexford Health
Sources (Corporate Healthcare Provider). Plaintiff seeks
monetary damages and injunctive relief.
relief section of Plaintiff's Complaint includes a
request for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. 1, p. 10). The
Court denied this request, without prejudice, on October 18,
2016. (Doc. 5). As stated in the order denying
Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction,
Plaintiff may file a proper motion seeking injunctive relief
at a later date if the need arises. Id.
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). 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.
2011, while incarcerated at Lawrenceville Correctional Center
(“Lawrenceville”), Plaintiff injured his hip
during a game of handball. (Doc. 1, p. 3). Initially, he was
misdiagnosed with an arthritic hip injury. As a result,
Plaintiff was confined to a wheelchair and in severe pain for
over a year. Id. It was later determined that
Plaintiff was suffering from a festering infection causing
hip deterioration. Id. On January 3, 2013, Plaintiff
underwent hip replacement surgery. (Doc. 1, p. 4). After
completing surgery, Plaintiff received a medical permit.
Id. The medical permit did not have an expiration
date (the expiration date was listed as
“indefinite”) and included authorization to
utilize a cane. (Doc. 1, pp. 4-5). Plaintiff
considered filing a lawsuit regarding his hip injury and
initial misdiagnosis. (Doc. 1, p. 4). However, staff at
Lawrenceville indicated he would lose good time credit if he
pursued a claim. Id. As a result, he never filed a
claim and, according to Plaintiff, the statute of limitations
has expired. Id.
2015, Plaintiff was transferred to Pinckneyville.
Id. Upon arrival, Plaintiff met with a Pinckneyville
physician. Id. That physician allowed Plaintiff to
keep his cane and indicated he would update Plaintiff's
medical permit to reflect his transfer to Pinckneyville.
Id. On April 12, 2016, Pinckneyville staff observed
Plaintiff walking without the aid of his cane and throwing a
basketball. (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6). At that time, Officer Smith
(Badge # 10491) approached Plaintiff and confiscated his cane
for security reasons. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Nurse Peek conferred
with Officer Smith and concluded that Plaintiff no longer
needed the cane. Id. Plaintiff objected and tried to
explain that he was merely exercising his hip in accord with
doctors' orders. (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6).
filed a grievance on April 12, 2016. Two counselors (Landis
and D. Flatt) responded, indicating that Plaintiff's
medical permit for a cane expired in 2013. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
Plaintiff then filed a request with the Wexford medical
records office seeking a copy of his medical permit. (Doc. 1,
p. 7). The request went unanswered. Id. Plaintiff
contends ignoring requests for medical records is an ongoing
problem with Wexford's medical records office.
April 25, 2016, Plaintiff's artificial hip gave out, and
he slipped in the shower. Id. Plaintiff notified
medical staff about his fall and the pain he was
experiencing. Id. Despite the fact that Plaintiff
could barely walk, he was denied emergency treatment and
instructed to submit a request for sick call. Id. On
April 27, 2016, Plaintiff spoke with Landis, a counselor,
regarding his injury and severe pain. Id. Landis
indicated he would look into the situation and provided
Plaintiff with a grievance form. Id.
April 28, 2016, Plaintiff was seen during nurse sick call.
(Doc. 1, p. 8). Kim Richerson, a nurse, examined him.
Id. Plaintiff indicated he was in severe pain and
that when he fell he heard a loud popping noise. Id.
Richerson prescribed Tylenol and indicated she would refer
Plaintiff to the physician. Id.
days later (in approximately May 2016), Plaintiff was seen by
M. Scott, a physician. (Doc. 1, p. 8). Scott ordered x-rays,
wrote a prescription for pain medication and muscle relaxers,
and ordered physical therapy. Id. As of September
2016, Plaintiff still had not received physical therapy.
Id. Plaintiff ...