Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Henderson v. Lawrence Correctional Center

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

October 24, 2017

MARKEL HENDERSON, Y18880, Plaintiff,
v.
LAWRENCE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, JACK YEN, and JAY ACHANDRAN, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff 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.

         In 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.

         This 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 such relief.

         An 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).

         Upon 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.

         The Complaint

         On July 16, 2017, [1] 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 worsened. Id.

         Nothing 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.