Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McDougal v. Orkies

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

June 26, 2017

CARLOS DE'ANDRE MCDOUGAL, # R48043, Plaintiff,
v.
JASON ORKIES, DR. LARSON, DEBORAH J. ISAACS, and GARY GESTER, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          STACI M. YANDLE U.S. District Judge

         Plaintiff 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 such relief.

         An 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).

         Upon 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 dismissal.

         The Complaint

         In his 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).

         Discussion

         Based 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 Amendment.

         As 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.