United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
R. HERNDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Ronnie Parnell filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional
rights by officials at Pinckneyville and Lawrence
Correctional Centers. See Parnell v. Doe, No.
16-cv-1144-NJR (S.D. Ill.) (“original action”).
The original Complaint did not survive screening, and
Plaintiff was granted leave to amend. (Doc. 8). The First
Amended Complaint included unrelated claims against different
groups of defendants. (Doc. 11, original action). Pursuant to
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007), the
Court severed the claims that arose at Pinckneyville into the
instant action. (Doc. 11, original action).
instant action addresses seven claims (“Counts 5
through 11”) against Pinckneyville officials. (Doc. 1,
pp. 18-19). Plaintiff alleges that various prison officials
responded to his serious hip injury and related needs with
deliberate indifference and then retaliated against him when
he attempted to complain about his mistreatment. (Doc. 2). In
connection with these claims, Plaintiff seeks monetary
damages and injunctive relief. (Doc. 4, p. 13).
5 through 11 are now subject to preliminary review 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).
he was incarcerated at Lawrence, Plaintiff allegedly suffered
from an infection in his hip that resulted in bone loss and
necessitated hip replacement surgery. (Doc. 4, pp. 6-8).
Following surgery in January 2013, Plaintiff was prescribed a
cane and physical therapy. (Doc. 4, p. 8). He attended a
single physical therapy session on or around March 2, 2013.
transferred to Pinckneyville sometime in 2015. (Doc. 4, p.
8). Sergeant Chapman placed him in a segregation unit with a
healthy inmate. Id. Plaintiff maintains that he was
exposed to “an ongoing unnecessary risk to future
serious physical and mental harm” because of this
placement arrangement. Id.
February until April of 2015, Sergeant Chapman, Lieutenant
Pierce, Doctor Scott, and Jane Doe ##1-3 allegedly interfered
with “widely circulated medical orders and
recommendations” for treating inmates with physical
injuries or disabilities by denying Plaintiff access to
physical therapy, patient education, and proper exercise.
(Doc. 4, p. 9).
April or May of 2015, Plaintiff asked Counselor Landis for
information about preparing and filing a grievance and
lawsuit against prison officials. (Doc. 4, p. 9). Counselor
Landis discouraged Plaintiff from pursuing either form of
relief. Id. The counselor warned Plaintiff that he
would continue to be treated like a “trouble maker
living a disadvantaged life” without commissary, law
library, therapy, or disabled recreation gym, if he
complained about staff. Id. All of Plaintiff's
subsequent requests for grievances and law library access
were ignored or denied. Id. With a single exception,
Plaintiff's requests for physical therapy were also
April 12, 2016, Officer Smith, Nurse Peek, and Jane Doe #4
allegedly interfered with his prescribed course of treatment
when they confiscated Plaintiff's cane and prevented him
from following his doctor's orders to exercise. (Doc. 4,
p. 10). Two weeks later, Plaintiff slipped, fell, and injured
his finger while showering, and he attributes the injury to
the denial of his cane. Id.
October 2016, Plaintiff was reassigned to a new housing unit.
(Doc. 4, p. 10). His cell was located on the second floor at
the end of a long gallery. Id. Plaintiff told
Officer Dudek about his hip replacement and complained of
ongoing pain. (Doc. 4, pp. 10, 16-17). However, the officer
ignored his complaints and ordered Plaintiff to carry his own
mattress, property box, and fan up the stairs. Id.
He also assigned Plaintiff to a top bunk. Id.
Plaintiff was not reassigned to a new cell for two or three
case focuses on the following seven claims that arose during