United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Phil Gilbert U.S. District Judge
Troy Smith, an inmate in Centralia Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 relating to
Plaintiff's alleged overdose on prescribed Lithium. (Doc.
1). This case is now before the Court for a preliminary
review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
(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; this action is subject to summary
Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff makes the following
allegations: Plaintiff overdosed on Lithium, which was
prescribed to him by defendant J.J. Rodos. (Doc. 1, p. 5).
Given the SSM St. Mary's Hospital Laboratory Report that
Plaintiff provided with the Complaint, he was found to have a
Lithium level of 2.4 on December 3, 2015, which was flagged
on the report as “high critical.” (Doc. 1-1, p.
6). This amount was twice the highest amount (1.2) in the
reference range on the report. Id. Plaintiff claims
that this constituted toxic levels of Lithium, from which he
almost died. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff claims he suffered
pain and suffering and deterioration of health, particularly
with respect to his mental health treatment. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that defendants Singh, Rodos, Santos, and
Wexford Health Care violated his constitutional rights with
respect to this incident by failing to monitor his Lithium
levels by ordering blood tests. Id.
on the allegations of the Complaint (Doc. 1), 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, unless
otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court.
Count 1 - Defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to
Plaintiff's serious medical needs related to his overdose
on Lithium in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Plaintiff's Count 1, the Supreme Court has recognized
that “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs
of prisoners” may constitute cruel and unusual
punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994); see Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). This
encompasses a broader range of conduct than intentional
denial of necessary medical treatment, but it stops short of
“negligen[ce] in ...