United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge
Barry Morris, an inmate in Menard 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 have been deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical issues and subjected him
to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. (Doc. 5). 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. 5), Plaintiff makes the following
allegations: before Plaintiff's incarceration, he had
surgery on his right arm. (Doc. 5, p. 2). Plaintiff went to
physical therapy for a year to regain motion in his arm, but
it is still partially paralyzed and sensitive to the touch.
(Doc 1, p. 3). Plaintiff was incarcerated as early as 2006,
but he did not experience box and chain restraints until
2012. Id. Because of the great deal of pain the box
and chain restraints caused Plaintiff, he sought a medical
permit from the Stateville medical director that would exempt
him from the box and chain restraints in favor of medical
restraints and/or waist chains. Id. Stateville's
medical director granted the permit without issue, and a new
medical restraints permit has been issued to Plaintiff every
year since. Id.
was transferred to Menard from Stateville on August 31, 2016.
(Doc. 5, p. 2). On October 31, 2016, Plaintiff showed Dr.
Siddiqui his previous medical permits from Stateville, and
explained his medical condition and history to him.
Id. Dr. Siddiqui issued Plaintiff a comparable
medical restraints permit for Menard on October 31. (Doc. 5,
p. 3). On February 27, 2017, Plaintiff went out on his first
medical writ, and his waist chains and/or medical restraints
permit was not honored, allegedly because the medical permit
was not issued by the medical director, Dr. Trost.
Id. Plaintiff was subjected to the box and chain
setup, and was in pain because of it for approximately three
saw Dr. Trost on March 13, 2017, and was issued a medical
permit allowing Plaintiff waist chains and/or medical
restraints among other medical accommodations. Id.
On March 23, 2017, Plaintiff had another medical writ, so he
showed the permit from Dr. Trost to the writ officers in
order to avoid placement in the box and chain setup. (Doc. 5,
p. 4). The writ officers told Plaintiff that the
administration would not honor his permit. Id.
Plaintiff was scheduled for an MRI, so he went on the medical
writ without the benefit of waist chains and/or medical
restraints, and he suffered in pain for another three or more
next day,  Plaintiff had another medical writ but
refused to go unless he was placed in the proper, approved
restraints. Id. Plaintiff was told by a corrections
officer that the waist chains and medical restraints would
not be allowed, but that the officer, a major, would make
sure Plaintiff could put his hands any way he wanted and the
handcuffs would not be as tight as before. Id.
Plaintiff agreed to these terms, but blood flow was still
interrupted and his hand and arm became numb, his middle
finger curled up, and he endured pain and suffering for
another three or more hours. Id.
filed an emergency grievance on March 29, 2017 to Defendant
Warden Lashbrook regarding the situation. Id. On
April 5, 2017, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant ADA
Warden Lawrence concerning the issue. (Doc. 5, p. 5).
Plaintiff also wrote to several other individuals during this
timeframe in an attempt to resolve the issue, including
Defendant John Baldwin on April 12, 2017. Id.
Plaintiff requested a status update from Lashbrook on April
13, 2017 because he feared his upcoming court writ to Joliet,
Illinois in the box and chain would further damage his right
arm and hand and would cause ongoing pain throughout the
writ. Id. Because Lashbrook would not answer his
grievance, Plaintiff sent a cover sheet with his March 29,
2017 emergency ...