United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge.
Darius Saddler, an inmate in Vienna Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests
compensation. 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). 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.
careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits,
the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority
under § 1915A; portions of this action are subject to
10, 2016, Plaintiff submitted a request slip to the health
care unit at Vienna complaining of pain in his ear and jaw
area. (Doc. 1-1, p. 1). Dr. Aldridge conducted a dental
screening on July 19, 2016, and told Plaintiff he had a hole
in one of his teeth. Id. Plaintiff reported to
Aldridge's office on July 26, 2016 to have the tooth
extracted. Id. Aldridge attempted to pull the tooth
straight out, without success. Id. Aldridge and
Stroud, his assistant, informed Plaintiff that they would
have to drill the tooth in half in order to extract it.
Id. Plaintiff experienced severe pain and discomfort
when the drilling started. Id. As a result of his
pain and discomfort, Plaintiff's body began making
uncontrollable jerking movements. Id. Aldridge asked
Plaintiff why he was jerking. (Doc. 1-1, p. 2). Plaintiff
told him that he felt pain and the jerking was
uncontrollable. Id. Aldridge told him to get out.
Id. Plaintiff refused because he was bleeding and
the procedure was incomplete. Id. Aldridge stood
over Plaintiff and balled his fist in a threatening manner.
Id. Reed and McCollum ultimately escorted Plaintiff
out of the dentist's office. Id. Plaintiff did
not receive any medication for pain or infection, any mouth
rinses, any salt, or any packing to address the bleeding in
his mouth. Id.
August 11, 2016, Plaintiff was transported to Dr. Heine in
Paducah, Kentucky to complete the procedure. Heine told
Plaintiff he had an infection and irritation. Id.
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into 2 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. The following claim survives
Count 1 - Aldridge and Stroud were deliberately indifferent
to Plaintiff's serious dental needs in violation of the
Eighth Amendment when they began an extraction procedure they
were unequipped to complete, ignored his complaints of pain
during the procedure, and kicked him out of the incomplete