United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Michael Brewer, an inmate in Centralia Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests
monetary damages. 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.
January 7, 2016, Plaintiff attempted to climb onto his bunk,
when his wrist gave out on him and he fell backward into the
wall behind him. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff tried to catch
himself, but ended up catching his finger on the edge of the
wall. Id. He submitted a sick call slip.
January 12, 2016, Plaintiff saw Dr. Santos for a routine
check of his asthma. Id. While there, he mentioned
that he was experiencing pain in his right fifth digit and
showed Santos his disfigurement. Id. Santos told
Plaintiff it was a sprain and suggested that Plaintiff ice
the injury. Id. Plaintiff told Santos he had been
icing the injury, to little effect. Id. Santos
replied that Plaintiff was not a doctor, and that his finger
was sprained. Id. He denied Plaintiff an x-ray or
any pain medication. Id. He also suggested that
Plaintiff should cancel his sick call request so that he
would not be charged an additional $5 co-pay to hear the same
thing. Id. Relying on this advice, Plaintiff refused
his health care visit 2 days later. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
Plaintiff's finger did not heal, and so on approximately
January 21, 2016, he put in another request slip.
Id. Dr. Garcia saw Plaintiff on January 27, 2016, at
which time Plaintiff recounted his prior conversation with
Santos. Id. Garcia also concluded that the finger
was sprained, and told Plaintiff to ice it. Id.
Garcia also denied Plaintiff an x-ray, but gave him some pain
medication for his finger. Id.
still failed to improve, and he was seen in the health care
unit again on April 13, 2016 in response to his request for
an x-ray. Id. This time, his request was granted.
Id. Santos told Plaintiff that the x-ray showed that
Plaintiff had a chipped facture to his right fifth digit
finger. (Doc. 1, p. 7). Santos further told Plaintiff that
his finger had to be reset and straightened to heal properly.
Id. As of February 23, 2017, Plaintiff had received
no other treatment and continued to experience pain and
suffering. Id. His finger is also disfigured, and he
has trouble gripping and holding items. Id.
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into 1 count. The
parties and the Court will use these designations in all
future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a