United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
ROBERT MANN, No. M04569, Plaintiff,
VIPIN SHAH, MICHAEL SCOTT, DAN VACEL, TRACY PEEK, CHRISTINE L. BROWN, WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., JOHN DOE, and JANE DOE, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge
Robert Mann, formerly an inmate in Pinckneyville Correctional
Center (“Pinckneyville”), brings this action for
deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on April 3,
2017, while still incarcerated. The following day, Plaintiff
was released on parole. Plaintiff contends officials at
Pinckneyville denied him treatment for a torn rotator cuff.
In connection with these claims, Plaintiff sues Wexford
Health Sources, Inc., (corporate healthcare provider), Vipin
Shah (physician), Michael Scott (physician), Dan Vacel
(orthopedist), Tracy Peek (nurse), Christine L. Brown
(healthcare administrator), John Doe (physician) and Jane Doe
(nurse). According to the Complaint, Plaintiff sues all
Defendants in their individual capacities, and he is seeking
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 exercise its authority
under § 1915A; portions of this action are subject to
suffers from a torn rotator cuff in his left shoulder. (Doc.
1, p. 7). This injury was diagnosed by medical staff at the
Lake County Jail in April or June 2015. (Doc. 1, p. 12). The
injury causes severe and ongoing pain. (Doc. 1, pp. 8, 10).
At the time of filing, Plaintiff continued to suffer from the
shoulder injury and associated pain. (Doc. 1, p. 9).
generally alleges that, after being transferred to
Pinckneyville in August 2015, he repeatedly sought treatment
for his shoulder injury. (Doc. 1, pp. 7-11). He submitted
numerous sick-call requests. Id. According to the
Complaint, “many” of his sick-call requests were
ignored. (Doc. 1, pp. 7, 11, 13). When Plaintiff was able to
meet with medical staff, he contends he received inadequate
and/or ineffective treatment. (Doc. 1, pp. 7-11). It appears
that medical staff treated Plaintiff's injury with
physical therapy and ibuprofen - treatments Plaintiff
contends were ineffective. (Doc. 1, pp. 7-11; Doc. 1-1, pp.
2-28). Plaintiff repeatedly complained about his ongoing pain
and repeatedly requested surgery, treatment from an outside
specialist, and an MRI. Id. Plaintiff also
complained that if surgery was delayed for too long, his
injury could become permanent. Id. When his requests
were denied, Plaintiff filed grievances detailing his injury
and ongoing pain, his need for medical treatment, and the
inadequacies of his current treatment. (Doc. 1, pp. 11-12;
Doc. 1-1, pp. 16-28).
the allegations included in the Complaint regarding
Plaintiff's inadequate medical care are not directed at
any specific defendant. (See e.g., (Doc. 1, p. 10)
(alleging that Plaintiff made dozens of requests for an MRI
but all were denied by the Pinckneyville Healthcare
Department); (Doc. 1, p. 10) (alleging Plaintiff filled out
numerous sick call requests to make “them” aware
of his ongoing medical issues); (Doc. 1, p. 10) (Plaintiff
made between 20 and 30 requests to the Pinckneyville
Healthcare Department)). Similarly, some of the factual
allegations that are directed at specific defendants are
conclusory and not supported by any specific facts. (See
e.g. (Doc. 1, p. 11) (alleging that Pinckneyville
Medical staff and Wexford Health Source Inc., including Dr.
Doe, Nurse Doe, and Jane Does, failed to diagnose
Plaintiff's medical condition but failing to provide any
facts regarding Plaintiffs interactions with these
individuals)). However, Plaintiff also attaches relevant
grievances that provide a detailed history of Plaintiff s
alleged inadequate medical care.
Court notes the following factual allegations that are
associated with one or more defendants:
• Plaintiff was in segregation for approximately one
month in August 2015. During this time, Plaintiff repeatedly
submitted sick call requests and “many” were
ignored. Shah, Vacel, and an unidentified nurse (Defendant
Jane Doe) refused to assist Plaintiff and told Plaintiff he
could not be treated until he was released from segregation.
(Doc. 1, p. 7).
• Plaintiff had a sick-call visit with Peek, a nurse, on
February 22, 2017. Peek did not follow routine examination
procedures. Peek offered Plaintiff ibuprofen and informed him
he would not be seeing a physician because Scott, one of
Plaintiff s physicians, no longer worked at the prison. Peek
did not examine Plaintiffs shoulder or respond to Plaintiffs