United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE U.S. District Judge
De'Andre McDougal, an inmate in Big Muddy River
Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of
his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff claims the defendants have been deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs 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 exercise its authority
under § 1915A. This action is subject to summary
Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff makes the following
allegations: in November 2016, Plaintiff “started to
experience a searing pain in [his] left wrist and [he]
didn't know how it happen[ed].” (Doc. 1, p. 4). He
put in for nurse sick call and was given pain medication.
Id. When he saw Dr. Larson, he examined Plaintiff
and explained to him that he had no idea what caused the
injury or what type of injury it was. Id. Plaintiff
was given a low bunk permit, put in to see the physical
therapist, and received two x-rays. Id. Plaintiff
“wrote Medical Director Jason Orkies several times
complaining about [his] injury. [He] wrote several grievances
complaining about the lack of medical treatment” as
well. Id. Plaintiff requests permanent injunctive
relief and monetary damages. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into
a single count. The parties and the Court will use this
designation in all future pleadings and orders, unless
otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. The
designation of this count does not constitute an opinion
regarding its merit.
Count 1 - Larson and Orkies showed
deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical
need involving pain in his hand in violation of the Eighth
discussed in more detail below, Count 1 will be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Any other intended claim that has not been recognized by the
Court is considered dismissed without ...