United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
JAMES M. OSBORNE, Plaintiff,
GERALD W. DORRIS, SUE FUNKHOUSER, LEON KEHRER, and NURSE ASHELY, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Gilbert U.S. District Judge
James Osborne, an inmate in Shawnee 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 were deliberately indifferent
to his serious medical issues by withholding nerve pain
medication and refusing to give him certain tests while he
was a pretrial detainee in Franklin County Jail
(“Jail”), in violation of the Fourteenth
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 18, 2016, Defendants Dorris and
Funkhouser arbitrarily punished Plaintiff by taking him off
of his nerve pain medication. (Doc. 1, p. 5). They also told
Plaintiff that he needs to suffer everyday with nerve pain.
Id. Plaintiff filed a grievance on the matter, but
the grievance was never returned and he was not given the
right to appeal the grievance. Id. Without his
medication, Plaintiff was in a state of constant pain while
at the Jail. Id. Plaintiff spoke with Defendants Dr.
Kehrer and Nurse Ashely about the situation. Id.
They told Plaintiff he was not entitled to his medication.
Id. Plaintiff also asked Kehrer and Ashely for an
AIDS and Hepatitis C test, but they refused. Id.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from the defendants to
compensate him for his pain and suffering. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into
2 counts. 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. The
designation of these counts does not constitute an opinion
regarding their merit.
Count 1 - Defendants showed deliberate
indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical need for his
nerve pain medication in violation of the Fourteenth
Count 2 - Kehrer and Ashely showed
deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical
need for AIDS and Hepatitis C tests in violation of ...