United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
ALBERT C. MITCHELL, #S07758, Plaintiff,
MICHAEL SCOTT, CHRISTINE BROWN, and JACQUELINE LASHBROOK, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL United States District Judge.
Albert C. Mitchell, an inmate currently incarcerated in
Pinckneyville Correctional Center (“Menard”),
brings this pro se action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
According to the Complaint, Defendants have been deliberately
indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical condition.
Specifically, Plaintiff contends he suffers from a sexually
transmitted disease (“STD”) and/or ringworm
infection in his genital region. Plaintiff contends the
condition is worsening, and Defendants have refused to
provide necessary treatment and/or testing.
connection with his claims, Plaintiff names Michael Scott
(Pinckneyville Physician), Christine Brown (Pinckneyville
Health Care Unit Administrator), and Jacqueline Lashbrook
(former Pinckneyville Warden).
seeks monetary damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive
relief. His request for injunctive relief includes a request
for an “immediate injunction” directing
Defendants to screen Plaintiff for an STD. The Court
construes Plaintiff's request for immediate injunctive
relief as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a).
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.
has circular markings and discoloration in his genital region
that he believes are spreading. (Doc. 1, pp. 5-7). He is also
experiencing itching, irritation, pain, coldness, and
numbness in his genital region. (Doc. 1, p. 7). This
condition causes pain on a daily basis. Id.
Plaintiff has a history of engaging in unprotected sex and is
concerned his symptoms are the result of a sexually
transmitted disease. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Alternatively, Plaintiff
contends he may be suffering from ringworm. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
He claims that an online physician previously observed his
genital discoloration and opined that Plaintiff has ringworm.
Id. According to the Complaint, the online physician
directed Plaintiff to “get a shot of penicillin”
to treat the ringworm. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
20, 2016, Plaintiff attended an appointment with Scott for
evaluation of his genital condition. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Scott
conducted a visual examination of Plaintiff's genitals,
but Scott did not touch or manipulate Plaintiff's
genitals or complete any laboratory screenings. Id.
Scott informed Plaintiff that the markings and discoloration
in Plaintiff's genital region are normal skin
pigmentation and do not require medical treatment.
Id. When Plaintiff objected, Scott responded stating
“That's normal, if I pull mine out, I got the same
thing too.” Id. Scott disregarded
Plaintiff's continued objection and was condescending to
him. Id. Plaintiff asked if he could at least be
screened for an STD but Scott refused, insisting that there
is nothing wrong with Plaintiff. Id.
22, 2016, Plaintiff made a request with the Pinckneyville
HealthCare Unit (“HCU”) for an STD screening.
(Doc. 1, p. 5). Subsequently, Plaintiff was called from his
cell to speak with an in-house nurse. Id. For
reasons that are not entirely clear, Plaintiff was never able
to meet with the in-house nurse. Id. Plaintiff
believes the nurse forgot Plaintiff was waiting for an
examination. Id. Plaintiff subsequently received a