Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Scottt v. Siddiqui

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

October 25, 2017



          J. Phil Gilbert U.S. District Judge.

         Plaintiff Christopher Scott, an inmate in Menard Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests injunctive relief, declarative relief, and money 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).

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff was jogging on the prison yard on July 16, 2016 when he slipped on an uneven patch of dirt and grass. (Doc. 1, p. 8). He injured his right knee. Id. Specifically, Plaintiff experienced severe pain, swelling, and his right knee cap would grind and crack when moving it. Id. Since the incident, Plaintiff has been unable to fully flex or extend his knee or walk up and down stairs. Id. His knee feels unstable and Plaintiff is frequently in severe and extreme pain. Id.

         Plaintiff was referred to Siddiqui for his complaints of knee pain on July 25, 2016. Id. Siddiqui ordered an x-ray. Id. Siddiqui told Plaintiff that he probably had arthritis in his right knee, which caused an argument when Plaintiff told Siddiqui that his knee was injured while jogging 9 days prior. (Doc. 1, p. 9). Plaintiff requested a MRI, but Siddiqui declined to order it and said that he would never order a MRI. Id. Siddiqui gave Plaintiff ibuprofen. Id. The x-ray was negative for fracture or effusion. Id. Plaintiff continued to complain of pain and weakness. (Doc. 1, p. 10).

         Plaintiff saw non-party Dr. Tindall on October 28, 2016; she recommended that Plaintiff receive an MRI. Id. The request was denied by Dr. Ritz, an employee of Wexford Health Sources, who instead recommended a physical therapy evaluation on November 4, 2016. (Doc. 1, p. 11). Plaintiff alleges that physical therapy was recommended because it would cost little to nothing to Wexford and the IDOC. Id. Plaintiff was referred to an outside hospital where he was taught physical therapy exercises that he attempted to do on his own for several months. (Doc. 1, pp. 12-14).

         On April 2, 2017, Plaintiff was walking in the prison yard when his right knee gave out, causing him to lose his balance and break his right pinky toe. (Doc. 1, p. 14). Plaintiff saw Siddiqui on April 4, 2017 regarding his right knee; Siddiqui told Plaintiff he would refer him for an MRI for his knee, but declined to refer Plaintiff for an x-ray on his toe. (Doc. 1, p. 15). Plaintiff's case was submitted to Ritz for a second time on April 11, 2017. Id. Once again, Ritz denied Plaintiff an MRI and instead directed that he be placed on NSAIDS. Id. Plaintiff never received the medication. (Doc. 1, p. 16).

         Plaintiff saw Siddiqui again on April 27, 2017 regarding his knee. (Doc. 1, p. 19). Plaintiff complained that even though he had completed physical therapy, he was still experiencing pain and could not extend his knee or apply pressure. Id. Siddiqui told Plaintiff he could not help him and reiterated his conviction that Plaintiff suffers from arthritis. Id.

         Plaintiff was presented again in collegial for an MRI on May 17, 2017, and Ritz denied Plaintiff an MRI for the third time. (Doc. 1, p. 20). ...

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.