United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Markel Henderson, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections currently housed at Lawrence Correctional Center
(“Lawrence”), brings this pro se action
for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his
constitutional rights by prescribing Risperdal, which
allegedly caused him to develop female breast tissue-a
condition known as gynecomastia.
connection with these claims, Plaintiff sues Lawrence
Correctional Center, Jack Yen (MD/Physician, Lawrence), and
Jay Achandran (MD/Physician, Mount Sterling Correctional
Center). He seeks monetary damages.
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.
careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits,
the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority
under § 1915A. As explained below, the Complaint fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Accordingly, it shall be dismissed, but Plaintiff will have
an opportunity to file an amended complaint.
16, 2017,  Yen prescribed Risperdal (1 mg.) and
Remeron (30 mg.) for Plaintiff. (Doc. 1, p. 5). After taking
these medications for “X-amount of days/months, ”
Plaintiff began to experience burning and stinging sensations
in his chest and nipples. Id. “Months later,
” Plaintiff developed female breast tissue or
gynecomastia. Id. Plaintiff alerted correctional
officers and medical staff about the side effects.
Id. He also filed grievances. Id.
Plaintiff's complaints were disregarded, and he was told
this was a normal side effect of Risperdal. Id.
“Months later, ” Plaintiff's condition
in the Complaint speaks to whether Plaintiff (1) was warned
about Risperdal's known side effects, including the
chance of developing female breast tissue, (2) was given an
opportunity to refuse taking Risperdal in the first instance,
and (3) would have refused ...