United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
TIMOTHY J. CUNNINGHAM, SR., #R05718, Plaintiff,
JOHN DOES 13-18, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE U.S. District Judge.
Timothy Cunningham, an inmate in Lawrence Correctional
Center, brings this action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In
the relevant portions of his Complaint, Plaintiff claims the
defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious
medical issue and deprived him of certain items for a period
of time, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 2). 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-
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or
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.
portions of the Complaint (Doc. 2) are relevant in this case,
as the Complaint was subject to a Severance Order (Doc. 1)
entered in Case No. 16-cv-01360-MJR (“Related
Case”). In the Order, Plaintiff's claims at issue
here (Counts 5 and 6) were severed from several unrelated
claims in the Complaint. (Doc. 1).
portions of the Complaint relevant to Counts 5 and 6,
Plaintiff makes the following allegations: Plaintiff suffered
a heart attack in his cell on October 5, 2014 at Lawrence
Correctional Center. (Doc. 2, p. 8). John Does 13 through 18,
i.e., the officers on 6 house working that day,
ignored the panic button and Plaintiff waited 45 minutes for
medical assistance. (Doc. 2, pp. 8-9). Plaintiff was taken to
health care after his heart attack, where writing materials
and hygiene supplies were withheld from him for 26 days.
(Doc. 2, p. 9). He was unable to brush his teeth, comb his
hair, or wash his face. Id. He was, however,
provided a towel, washrag, and shampoo to use as soap when he
showered. Id. Plaintiff does not name the officers
who withheld these materials from him. Id.
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court severed the
following two counts, Counts 5 and 6, from the Related Case.
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.
5 - John Does 13-18 were deliberately indifferent to
Plaintiff's heart attack in violation of the Eighth
Amendment when they failed ...