United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE U.S. District Judge.
Keiahty Jones, an inmate in Danville 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, among other things,
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical issues during
his time at Lawrence Correctional Center, in violation of the
Eighth 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 December 26, 2015, Plaintiff notified
Defendant C/O Lenear that he was experiencing back spasms and
needed medical attention. (Doc. 1, p. 8). Lenear told
Plaintiff to “suck it up” and “stop
complaining” and refused to get him medical treatment.
Id. 10 to 20 minutes later, Lenear returned and
asked Plaintiff if he was ready for work. Id.
Plaintiff told Lenear that he was in too much pain to work
and that he would risk suffering greater injury if he was
forced to do so. Id. Plaintiff also told Lenear that
he was being treated for an unrelated injury that caused back
spasms and required Plaintiff to wear a brace. (Doc. 1, p.
9). Lenear told Plaintiff that if he did not comply with
Lenear's order to go to work, Lenear would write
Plaintiff a ticket. Id. Lenear also told Plaintiff
that his supervisor, John Doe, said Plaintiff had to work and
would face disciplinary action if he refused. Id.
of retaliation, Plaintiff went to work at the dietary hall.
Id. His work included pushing and lifting trays,
which put tremendous pressure on Plaintiff's lower back
and caused sharp pains to shoot down Plaintiff's right
leg. Id. Plaintiff informed Lenear that his spasms
were unbearable while he was working, but Lenear told
Plaintiff he had no choice but to work. (Doc. 1, p. 10).
Plaintiff asked to speak with Lenear's supervisor, but
Lenear walked away without providing the supervisor's
name, though he did tell Plaintiff his supervisor was a
while carrying breakfast trays up the stairs, Plaintiff
experienced unbearable pain to his lower back, upper back and
both legs. Id. While on the stairs again,
Plaintiff's back went into a violent spasm, and
Plaintiff's body buckled under the weight of the milk and
juice carts he was carrying. (Doc. 1, p. 11). Plaintiff fell
down most of the stairs, hitting his head and injuring other
parts of his body. Id. A carton of milk also fell
onto his back after the fall, exacerbating Plaintiff's
pain. Id. Plaintiff was transported to the health
care unit on a stretcher. Id.
health care unit, Plaintiff was asked by Defendant Jane Doe,
a nurse, about his pain. (Doc. 1, 15). When he replied that
he was in too much pain to move, Nurse Jane Doe left him on
the stretcher for hours and later returned with one Motrin
for his pain and a 3 day medical lay-in. Id.
Plaintiff told Nurse Jane Doe that Motrin does not work for
the pain he experienced, to which she responded that
Plaintiff's pain was sciatic nerve pain and that he
should take the Motrin. Id. Although Plaintiff
continued to insist that Motrin would not relieve his pain,
Nurse Jane Doe refused to give him a different type of pain
medication. Id. Plaintiff believes he would not have
experienced continued pain had Nurse Jane Doe prescribed him
pain medication other than Motrin. (Doc. 1, p. 16).
December 26, 2015 through December 29, 2015, Plaintiff was
denied breakfast because Lenear ordered inmate Hutchins not
to provide it to him. (Doc. 1, p. 17). Lenear made this order
because he thought Plaintiff fell intentionally on December
26th. Id. This deprivation caused
Plaintiff stomach and hunger pains. Id.
December 30, 2015, Plaintiff was examined by Defendant Doctor
Coe for his injuries. (Doc. 1, p. 18). Coe prescribed
Plaintiff crutches, dimethazone, Tylenol 3, a muscle relaxer,
naproxen, an analgesic balm and a back brace. (Doc. 1, pp.
18-19). Coe also extended Plaintiff's medical lay-in to
January 9, 2016. (Doc. 1, p. 19). Plaintiff informed Coe that
he had been experiencing headaches, dizziness, fatigue and
loss of concentration and memory since sustaining a head
injury during the fall on December 26, 2015. Id. Coe
replied that Plaintiff's symptoms were consistent with
post-concussive disorder. Id. When Plaintiff asked
if Coe could treat him for these symptoms, Coe told Plaintiff
that they would go away on their own and that Plaintiff would
have to live with them. Id.
days later, Plaintiff began experiencing severe cramps,
stomach pains, hardened bloody stool and vomiting. (Doc. 1,
p. 20). Plaintiff notified Coe about the issue and Coe told
him that there was nothing he could do about it and that
Plaintiff would have to wait until he went home to deal with
it with another doctor. Id. Coe denied all further
treatment of Plaintiff after this exchange. Id.
Plaintiff continues to suffer from emotional pain and
distress, depression, headaches, dizziness, fatigue, loss of
concentration and memory, leg pain, chronic upper back pain,
chronic lower back pain and loss of sleep. (Doc. 1, pp.
claims the defendants' actions were extreme and
outrageous and taken with the intent to cause, or were in
reckless disregard of the probability that their conduct
would cause severe emotional distress to the Plaintiff. (Doc.
1, p. 23). Plaintiff seeks ...