United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE DISTRICT JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
case is now before the Court for consideration of the Amended
Complaint filed by Plaintiff Reginald Durr on September 8,
2017. (Doc. 15). Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Big
Muddy River Correctional Center (“Big Muddy”). He
brings this civil rights action pro se pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). In the Amended Complaint,
Plaintiff claims that Dennis Larson, a physician at Big
Muddy, failed to properly diagnose and treat his chronic neck
pain. (Doc. 15, p. 5). Plaintiff further claims that as a
result, he suffered from years of unnecessary pain and
eventual paralysis of his left arm and hand. Id. He
now seeks monetary relief. (Doc. 15, p. 6).
Amended Complaint is subject to preliminary review under 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). The Amended Complaint survives screening under this
to the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff met with Doctor Larson to
discuss chronic neck pain several times during his
incarceration at Big Muddy. (Doc. 15, p. 5). Plaintiff
describes years of pain, particularly when rotating his neck.
Id. Doctor Larson told Plaintiff that his x-rays
showed “no issues.” (Doc. 15, pp. 4-5). Plaintiff
thought his neck pain was simply part of the aging process.
(Doc. 15, p. 4). He used a hot towel to relieve the pain, but
it made no difference. (Doc. 15, p. 5).
2015, Plaintiff asked Doctor Larson to “try something
new.” (Doc. 15, p. 5). Instead of x-rays, Plaintiff
requested an MRI. Id. The doctor ordered the test,
and it revealed “severe issues with [Plaintiff's]
cervical spine.” Id. This was not something
that x-rays would detect. Id.
was required to undergo surgery. (Doc. 15, p. 5). The surgeon
told Plaintiff that years of pain would have been avoided if
Doctor Larson had timely diagnosed and treated the condition.
Id. In addition, Plaintiff would have avoided
paralysis of his left arm and hand. Id. Plaintiff
now seeks monetary relief against Doctor Larson. (Doc. 15, p.
facilitate the orderly management of future proceedings in
this case, and in accordance with the objectives of Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 8(e) and 10(b), the Court deems it
appropriate to organize the claim in ...