Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hutcherson v. Talbot

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

March 15, 2017

LONNIE HUTCHERSON, #B43963 Plaintiff,
v.
DR. TALBOT, DR. SHAH, DR. BUTALID, and DR. LOCHARD, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          J. Phil Gilbert U.S. District Judge.

         Plaintiff 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 such relief.

         An 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. 2009).

         Upon careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to allow this case to proceed past the threshold stage.

         The Complaint

         In his 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 water.” Id.

         Plaintiff's 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). Id.

         In his 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).

         Discussion

         Based 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, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.