United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL United States District Judge
Scott Smado, an inmate currently housed at Robinson
Correctional Center (“Robinson”), filed this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff brings
allegations pertaining to the medical care he received (or
failed to receive) at Robinson. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff seeks
monetary damages and any further relief that the Court deems
just. (Doc. 1, pp. 9-13).
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
Complaint (Doc. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which
(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.
January 28, 2017, at 1:00 am, Plaintiff began vomiting black
liquid. (Doc. 1, p. 3). Plaintiff asked Hoalt, a correctional
officer, to call the Healthcare unit. Id. Hoalt
called the Healthcare unit and spoke with Rice, a nurse.
Id. Rice told Hoalt to instruct Plaintiff to sign up
for sick call because “everyone has a bug.”
Id. At 2:00 am Plaintiff vomited black liquid again.
Id. At 3:00 am Plaintiff signed up for sick call.
Id. At 4:45 am, Plaintiff was dizzy, pale, and
drenched in sweat. Id. He rushed to Hoalt and asked
Hoalt to call a code 3. Id. Hoalt called the
Healthcare unit a second time and relayed Plaintiff's
symptoms to Rice. Id. Rice, once again, stated that
Plaintiff needed to sign up for sick call. Id. Hoalt
advised Rice that Plaintiff had already signed up for sick
call and hung up the phone. Id. Hoalt then asked
Plaintiff if he had chest pains. Id. Plaintiff
denied having any chest pains. Id. Concerned about
the distress Plaintiff was in, however, Hoalt called a code 3
for chest pains anyway. Id.
staff took Plaintiff to the Healthcare unit. (Doc. 1, p. 4).
Shah, a physician, and Rice examined Plaintiff. Id.
Plaintiff reported vomiting, chills, sweating, and dizziness.
Id. Plaintiff's EKG readings were abnormal.
Id. Accordingly, Shah gave Plaintiff medication and
called an ambulance. Id. Emergency room staff
determined that Plaintiff was bleeding internally and had
lost a lot of blood. Id. Plaintiff received
lifesaving treatment, including blood transfusions.
Id. Further tests revealed Plaintiff had three
ulcers in his esophagus and four ulcers in his stomach, which
ruptured simultaneously. Id.
February 23, 2017, Plaintiff found blood in his stool.
Id. Plaintiff asked Kocher, a correctional officer,
to contact the Healthcare unit. Id. Kocher called
the Healthcare unit and reported Plaintiff's symptoms to
Stephens, a nurse. Id. Stephens indicated that the
physician was out and that Plaintiff would have to wait until
tomorrow. Id. Because Plaintiff had recently
received emergency treatment for internal bleeding, Kocher
disregarded Stephens and sent Plaintiff for treatment at the
Healthcare unit. Id. A member of the nursing staff,
Cummings, tested Plaintiff's stool. (Doc. 1, p. 5). It
was positive for blood. Id. Follow-up stool tests
(2/24/2017 through 2/26/2017) also revealed the presence of
being taken to the healthcare unit on February 23, 2017,
Plaintiff was also seen by James, a physician assistant.
Id. James saw Plaintiff at 6:00 pm on February 23,
2017 (a Thursday). Cummings informed James that Plaintiff had
blood in his stool. Id. James indicated that he
would let the physician deal with Plaintiff on Monday.
Monday February 27, 2017-four days after blood was detected
in Plaintiff's stool- Plaintiff was seen by Shah.
Id. Shah ordered tests and discovered that Plaintiff
was bleeding internally and was losing blood. Id.
several occasions, Plaintiff complained to Slichenmyer (the
director of nursing), Martin (a healthcare administrator),
Rains (the warden), and Brookhart (an internal affairs
officer) regarding his allegedly inadequate medical treatment
on January 28, 2017, and February 23, 2017. (Doc. 1, pp.
5-7). Specifically, Plaintiff complained that Rice and
Stephens failed to promptly address his medical complaints.
Id. These Defendants took no action, indicating that
because Plaintiff was presently receiving medical care, no
action was necessary. Id.
addition, when Plaintiff complained to Brookhart, he asked if
Plaintiff intended to file a lawsuit. (Doc. 1, pp. 6-7). At
some point, Brookhart spoke to Plaintiff and threatened and
harassed him. Id. He indicated that if Plaintiff
filed a lawsuit ...