United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Phil Gilbert U.S. District Judge.
Lonnie Hutcherson, an inmate in Lincoln Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his Complaint,
Plaintiff claims the defendants have been deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical issues in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 1). 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 allow this case to proceed
past the threshold stage.
Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff makes the following
allegations: on July 7, 2016, Plaintiff was diagnosed with an
“umbilical hernia.” (Doc. 1, p. 4). Prior to
that, while incarcerated at Danville Correctional Center,
Plaintiff complained of a burning sensation in his stomach
only to receive various medications from the doctors there.
Id. Even with the medications, Plaintiff
“continued to have excruciating pain.”
Id. Plaintiff was given a blood and urine test, and
the doctors insisted there was nothing wrong with him when
the tests allegedly came back clear. Id. Plaintiff
was transferred from Danville to Robinson Correctional Center
on August 7, 2013. Id. Plaintiff was still suffering
from stomach pain at that time, so the doctors at Robinson
gave him an x-ray and ultrasound that Plaintiff was told came
back “negative.” Id. Dr. Shah and Dr.
Butler then told Plaintiff to simply “drink more
excruciating pain continued. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Despite this,
Dr. Lochard told Plaintiff that he was not going to do
anything about it. Id. Meanwhile, Plaintiff's
wife contacted Lisa Prather, the Medical Director in
Springfield, about Plaintiff's issues. Id.
Prather ordered the medical staff at Robinson to send
Plaintiff to Crawford Medical to get a CT scan, the results
of which showed Plaintiff's hernia. Id. To this
date, Plaintiff remains in pain. Id. Plaintiff's
grievance on the issue was denied as untimely. Id.
Plaintiff fears that nothing will be done and that he will
die before his MSR (presumably his release date).
statement of claim, Plaintiff appears to be requesting
injunctive relief in his comment that he “trust[s] the
courts will make this administration [Healthcare] send me out
for surgery before it is too late!!” Id.
Plaintiff also seeks monetary damages from the defendants.
(Doc. 1, p. 6).
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to designate a single count in this pro
se action. The parties and the Court will use this
designation in all future pleadings and orders, ...