United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
TONY N. FENNELL Y19999, Plaintiff,
MIKE DICKSON, and DR. BLANKENSHIP, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
brings this pro se civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at
Graham Correctional Center. Plaintiff brings claims
pertaining to his arrest and subsequent detention at the
Madison County Jail. In connection with his claims, Plaintiff
names Mike Dickson (Captain, Madison County Sheriff's
Dept.) and Dr. Blankenship (Physician, Madison County Jail).
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.
“Madison County Sherriff's Department”
arrested Plaintiff on September 10, 2015. (Doc. 1, p. 5).
Approximately 35-40 days prior to being arrested, Plaintiff
had surgery performed on his knee. Id. The surgery
was necessary because Plaintiff had been shot and part of his
kneecap was “blown off.” Id. Because of
the injury and recent surgery, Plaintiff was using crutches
at the time of his arrest. Id. Plaintiff contends
that when he was arrested, his crutches were taken and he was
forced to walk on his injured leg. Id.
arrest, Plaintiff was detained at the Madison County Jail.
Id. Plaintiff contends his rights were violated at
the jail because he could not see his knee surgeon, did not
receive proper pain management, and did not receive
“any proper medical attention.” Id.
Complaint suggests that Plaintiff is attempting to assert two
Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference. The
first claims pertains to arresting officers not allowing
Plaintiff to use his crutches at the time of arrest,
resulting in Plaintiff walking on an injured leg. The second
claim pertains to allegedly inadequate medical care for
Plaintiff's injured knee when Plaintiff was a pretrial
detainee at the Madison County Jail. The alleged facts fall
short of stating a claim for deliberate indifference. The
fact that Plaintiff was not allowed to use his crutches,
during an arrest, standing alone, does not suggest deliberate
indifference. Further, the threadbare allegations pertaining
to inadequate pain management and/or care while detained are
insufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference.
Complaint also fails to associate specific defendants with
specific claims. Dickson and Blankenship are identified as
defendants in the case caption and list of defendants.
However, with the exception of their job descriptions
(describing Dickson as “the captain of the force that
arrested me” and Blankenship as “the doctor