United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Phil Gilbert District Judge
matter is now before the Court for preliminary review of the
First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Lusta Johnson.
(Doc. 14). Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Federal
Correctional Institution located in Milan, Michigan
(“FCI-Milan”). He brings this action pursuant to
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388
(1971). In the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff claims that
he was denied treatment for multiple left foot fractures by
medical providers at the Federal Correctional Institution
located in Greenville, Illinois
(“FCI-Greenville”). (Doc. 14, pp. 6-8). These
individuals include Elizabeth Mills (physician's
assistant), K. Schneider (physician's assistant), Douglas
Kruse (doctor), J. Jolliff (nurse), and Paul Kelley (nurse).
Plaintiff claims that all five providers exhibited deliberate
indifference to his serious medical condition in violation of
the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 14, p. 9). He seeks monetary
damages against them. Id.
case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the
First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
(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 screening under
October 2, 2014, Plaintiff alleges that he met with personnel
in FCI-Greenville's Health Services Unit
(“HSU”) to discuss his complaints of a sore and
swollen left foot. (Doc. 14, p. 6). Following a negative
finding on a radiology report dated November 11, 2014,
Plaintiff was informed that his foot was not fractured.
Id. For more than a year, he registered
“continuous complaints of pain and discomfort”
with the following HSU employees: K. Schneider (PA-C),
Elizabeth Mills (PA-C), Douglas Kruse (doctor), J.
Jollieff (nurse), and Paul Kelley (nurse).
Id. Between April and October 2015, he also
complained of swelling. Id.
radiology report dated October 7, 2015, revealed
“abnormal” findings with “subacute
fractures to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th metatarsals and a halix
valgus 41 degrees and swelling of the forefoot.” (Doc.
14, p. 6). Plaintiff met with P.A. Mills to review the report
on October 8, 2015. Id. When she told him about the
multiple left foot fractures, Plaintiff asked Mills if he had
“been walking around one year with a fracture[d]
foot.” Id. She confirmed that he had.
Id. She said that she “missed” the
fractures on the original x-ray. Id. P.A. Mills then
gave Plaintiff a walking boot until he could be seen by a
met with Doctor Adamovsky on November 19, 2015. (Doc. 14, p.
7). The doctor placed his foot in a fiberglass cast.
Id. He was placed in a second fiberglass cast at
Feet First Podiatry on December 17, 2015. Id. He was
also issued crutches at FCI-Greenville on January 7, 2016.
Id. After noting that his foot appeared to be
healing well, Doctor Adamovsky removed his cast and issued
him a walker boot sometime thereafter. Id. On March
15, 2016, Plaintiff requested a follow-up x-ray and
receiving either, he transferred to FCI-Milan. (Doc. 14, p.
7). On April 27, 2016, he underwent a health screening at the
new facility. Id. He requested further treatment in
a sick call request on May 6, 2016. Id. Plaintiff
was assessed for foot and ankle pain and prescribed
Amitriptyline (10mg) for pain. Id. An x-ray was also
taken of his left foot. Id. He received the results
on May 17, 2016. Id. The x-ray report indicated that
the second, third, fourth, and fifth metatarsals showed
deformity from an old fracture. Id. To date, he has
not met with a podiatrist for further evaluation of his left
requested a sick call visit on July 8, 2016, after
complaining of extreme pain, burning, and numbness in his
left foot. (Doc. 14, p. 8). Doctor Wilson examined him and
prescribed him nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for pain.
Id. He returned on August 31, 2016, after eight
months without a follow-up visit with the podiatrist.
Id. Plaintiff was informed that his fractures were
healed, and no further treatment was necessary. Id.
Even so, he was prescribed more nonsteroidal
anti-inflammatory drugs. Id. When Plaintiff again