United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
ADAM R. KANE, #R-09804, Plaintiff,
DOCTOR SANTOS, MEDICAL DIRECTOR, NURSE PICKETT, and NURSE SCHUMUKOR, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Adam Kane, an inmate who is currently incarcerated at East
Moline Correctional Center, brings this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional
rights at Centralia Correctional Center
(“Centralia”). (Doc. 1). Plaintiff claims that he
was denied adequate medical care for a growth on his right
arm in 2015. (Doc. 1, pp. 3-7). He now brings this action
against Centralia's Medical Director, Doctor Santos,
Nurse Pickett, and Nurse Schumukor for violating his rights
under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Doc. 1, pp.
1-2). Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.
(Doc. 1, p. 8).
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
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 Complaint survives review under this standard.
his incarceration at Centralia, Plaintiff developed a large,
painful growth on his right arm. (Doc. 1, p. 3). Lieutenant
sent him to the prison's health care unit
(“HCU”) for treatment on October 4, 2015.
Id. After examining the growth, a nurse told
Plaintiff that he would be “alright” and sent him
back to his cell with a Band-Aid. Id.
returned to the HCU three days later. (Doc. 1, p. 3). By this
time, the growth on his arm was swollen and painful.
Id. It was also oozing “noxious-smelling
odorous fluids.” Id. Plaintiff was sent back
to his housing unit without any treatment. Id.
same day, he returned to the HCU demanding to be seen. (Doc.
1, p. 3). Plaintiff complained of pain and swelling, and he
requested a diagnosis and treatment. Id. When the
HCU nurse first saw him, she exclaimed, “[H]oly cow,
how long have you had that?” Id. The nurse
told Plaintiff that he was “not going anywhere”
and admitted him to the HCU. Id.
following day, Nurse Pickett met with Plaintiff to
“purportedly swab the area for a biopsy.” (Doc.
1, p. 4). At the time, the growth was still leaking fluids.
Id. Doctor Santos entered the room and instructed
Plaintiff to follow him into “surgery.”
Id. He appeared to have a scalpel and scissors in
his possession. Id. Without prepping the area for
surgery or applying a numbing agent, the doctor began cutting
and snipping at the growth. Id. As the doctor cut
“through live tissue, ” Plaintiff complained of
excruciating pain. Id. In response to
Plaintiff's complaints, the doctor asked, “What are
you a boy scout?” Id. The doctor did not apply
a numbing agent to Plaintiff's arm until
Pickett and Schumukor were present during the entire
procedure. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Neither objected to the
doctor's actions nor took steps to stop him from
performing surgery on Plaintiff. Id. They also took
no steps to summon help from the nearby Medical Director, who
was aware of the procedure and allegedly approved of or
condoned the doctor's actions. Id. Instead, the
nurses watched “in horror while . . . grimacing [and] .
. . wincing with each snip.” Id. Another nurse
later described the doctor's actions as
getting over the initial shock associated with the
doctor's actions and the lack of concern he showed for
Plaintiff's pain, Plaintiff asked to be taken to a
hospital. (Doc. 1, p. 4). In response, the doctor said,
“Well, for this to be done correctly you'd need to
go to an outside hospital but the State is broke, so this
will have to do.” (Doc. 1, p. 5). Doctor Santos then
told Plaintiff that the growth was only an abscess, but a
biopsy would still be ordered. Id.
Santos left a dime-sized hole in Plaintiff's arm. (Doc.
1, p. 5). Plaintiff was given a topical antibiotic,
i.e., Silvadine, and instructed to take daily
showers in the HCU. ...