United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE U.S. District Judge
Scott Smado, an inmate who is currently incarcerated in
Robinson Correctional Center (“Robinson”), brings
this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that he
was denied adequate medical care for a right hip and femoral
neck fracture at Robinson in 2015 and 2016. (Doc. 1). As a
result, he suffered from unnecessary pain and infection that
necessitated additional surgery. Id. Plaintiff now
seeks monetary relief against the defendants. Id.
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.
2009). The Complaint survives preliminary review under this
working in Robinson's commissary on June 12, 2015,
Plaintiff fell and injured his hip. (Doc. 1, p. 4). X-rays
taken the same day revealed a shattered right hip and femoral
neck fracture. Id. Plaintiff underwent surgery at an
outside facility the following day. Id.
returned to the prison on June 22, 2015. (Doc. 1, pp. 4, 6).
Plaintiff was housed in Robinson's infirmary until July
1, 2015 and returned for further observation and care several
times thereafter. (Doc. 1, p. 4). However, the Complaint does
not indicate when or for how long.
claims that he fell several times between June 22, 2015 and
July 1, 2015 and sustained further injuries. (Doc. 1, p. 4).
He blames a faulty wheelchair and handicap shower seat for
these falls. (Doc. 1, pp. 4, 6). The prison-issued wheelchair
lacked leg supports, leaving Plaintiff's surgically
repaired hip and leg unsupported. (Doc. 1, p. 6). The shower
chair had a loose seat and screws. (Doc. 1, p. 7). As
Plaintiff attempted to get into and out of the wheelchair, he
fell and injured himself “several times.”
Id. He also fell from the broken shower chair on
June 29, 2015. Id.
notified Assistant Warden Brookhart that the faulty equipment
caused him to fall and sustain further injuries. (Doc. 1, pp.
4, 7). He had at least one conversation with her about these
issues between June 22, 2015 and July 6, 2015. (Doc. 1, p.
7). He also filed a grievance on or about July 12, 2015 to
complain about her inaction. Id. However, Brookhart
continued to ignore Plaintiff's complaints and took no
action to ensure his safety. (Doc. 1, pp. 4, 6-7).
July 1, 2015 through October 1, 2015, Plaintiff complained
directly to his treating prison physician, Doctor Osmoundson,
of ongoing pain, popping and swelling in his right hip. (Doc.
1, pp. 4, 8). He requested “medical
intervention.” (Doc. 1, p. 8). The doctor allegedly
insisted that there was nothing wrong and recommended that
Plaintiff simply continue with his exercise program. (Doc. 1,
pp. 4, 8). Doctor Osmoundson failed to coordinate
Plaintiff's postoperative appointments and follow-up
treatment with his surgeon. Id. In addition, the
doctor instructed Plaintiff to use a cane while his surgeon
recommended against its use. Id. At some point,
Plaintiff returned to the prison's health care unit for
further observation, but Doctor Osmoundson released him back
to Housing Unit #6 on September 23, 2015, despite
Plaintiff's complaints of continued pain and popping.
(Doc. 1, p. 4).
further alleges that a Physicians' Assistant, Travis
James, was also “made personally aware of this ongoing
pain and popping” in Plaintiff's right hip between
June 13, 2015 and October 12, 2015. (Doc. 1, pp. 5, 9). James
met with Plaintiff several times following surgery. (Doc. 1,
p. 9). Plaintiff requested additional medical care, but James
refused to issue any new order because he believed that
Plaintiff was “faking ...