United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Richard Rogers, an inmate who is currently incarcerated in
Western Illinois Correctional Center, brings this action for
deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that officials at White
County Jail and Hamilton County Jail failed to provide him
with timely treatment for Methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus (“MRSA”). (Doc. 7, pp.
5-6). As a result, he became seriously ill. Id.
Plaintiff now seeks monetary relief against Robert Crow
(Hamilton County Sheriff), Randy Cobb (White County
Sergeant), Officer Kaleena (White County official), Hamilton
County, and White County. (Doc. 7, p. 7).
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
First Amended Complaint (Doc. 7) 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 First Amended Complaint survives preliminary
review under this standard.
to the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff contracted MRSA
following his detention at White County Jail in April 2016.
(Doc. 7, p. 5). Sometime in July 2016, he notified a member
of the White County Jail's medical staff, Officer
Kaleena, that he was experiencing “pain in the back of
[his] head.” Id. Officer Kaleena observed a
sore on Plaintiff's head. Id. However, she said
that nothing could be done because Hamilton County was
responsible for him, not White County. Id.
wrote letters directly to Hamilton County's Sheriff
(Robert Crow) and a White County Sergeant (Randy Cobb). (Doc.
7, p. 6). He complained of pain and requested medical
treatment for it. Id. Both defendants
“disregarded” Plaintiff's requests.
making rounds three weeks later, Officer Kaleena again
examined the sore on Plaintiff's head. (Doc. 7, p. 5). It
looked much worse, and Plaintiff was sent to Hamilton County
Hospital for further evaluation. Id. There, he was
diagnosed with MRSA. Id. Because of the delay in
treatment, the infection had entered Plaintiff's
bloodstream. Id. He became seriously ill and was
transferred to Mount Vernon Good Samaritan Hospital for
further treatment. Id. Plaintiff remained there for
a month. Id. He then transferred to Menard
Correctional Center, where he received forty-five days of
additional treatment in the prison's health care unit.
alleges that he will carry MRSA for the rest of his life.
(Doc. 7, p. 5). He has also suffered from and been treated
for a kidney infection since his diagnosis with MRSA. (Doc.
7, p. 6). Had Officer Kaleena provided him with prompt