United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN Chief Judge
Javar Stewart, an inmate who is currently incarcerated at
Pinckneyville Correctional Center
(“Pinckneyville”), brings this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Warden
Jacqueline Lashbrook, Lieutenant Ramsey, Officer Redding,
Doctor Michael Scott, and Nurse Kimberly Ferrari. In his
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that these individuals denied
him timely and adequate medical treatment for a broken knee
at Pinckneyville in 2016. (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6). As a result, he
endured excruciating pain. Id. Plaintiff now brings
claims against these defendants under the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments. (Doc. 1, p. 6). He seeks monetary
relief against them. (Doc. 1, p. 7).
case is 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.
2009). The Complaint survives preliminary review under this
February 11, 2016, Plaintiff slipped and fell while working
as a janitor at Pinckneyville. (Doc. 1, p. 5). He immediately
felt excruciating pain in his knee and summoned help from two
nearby officers, Officer Redding and Lieutenant Ramsey.
Id. The two officers notified the prison's
healthcare unit (HCU) about Plaintiff's injury and had
him transported there in a wheelchair. Id.
Ferrari examined Plaintiff's knee but told him that there
was nothing she could do. (Doc. 1, p. 5). She explained that
it was a holiday weekend, and no one would be able to see him
until the following week. Id. The nurse wrapped
Plaintiff's knee in an ace bandage and sent him back to
his housing unit. Id.
four days, Plaintiff waited for medical attention. (Doc. 1,
p. 5). While he waited, the prison's medical staff never
checked on him. Id. Plaintiff alleges that his knee
was obviously swollen and in need of treatment. Id.
February 15, 2016, Plaintiff was finally called back to the
prison's HCU. (Doc. 1, p. 5). He waited to meet with a
medical provider from 11:15 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. Id.
Plaintiff complained to the assigned officer about his ongoing
pain and the need for immediate treatment. Id. The
officer simply said, “[T]hey will see [you] whenever
they see [you].” (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff was sent
back to his housing unit that evening before seeing anyone.
February 16, 2016, Doctor Scott finally examined
Plaintiff's knee. (Doc. 1, p. 6). He ordered x-rays,
which were completed the next day by Shannon
Bradley. Id. The x-rays revealed a
fractured patella. Id. Doctor Scott ordered
Plaintiff a cane and pain medication. Id. He then
sent Plaintiff back to his cell. Id.
submitted a written request for more pain medication later
the same day. (Doc. 1, p. 6). He explained that the medicine
prescribed by Doctor Scott was ineffective. Id.
Plaintiff experienced severe pain any time he attempted to
February 22, 2017, Plaintiff was granted approval for an
appointment with an outside orthopedist. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
However, Warden Lashbrook did not authorize a medical writ
until March 7, 2016. Id. Plaintiff underwent knee
surgery the following month. (Doc. 1-1, p. 4).
Plaintiff waited for approval of the medical writ, he
submitted one or more grievances to staff to complain about
the delay in treatment. (Doc. 1, p. 6). He received no
response to his grievance(s) until April 12, 2016, which was
two months after his ...