United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Phil Gilbert, U.S. District Judge
Tony Hickman, an inmate in Robinson Correctional Center,
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
deprivations of his constitutional rights. In his Complaint,
Plaintiff claims the defendants have been deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical issues in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 1). 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
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 allow this case to proceed
past the threshold stage.
Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff makes the following
allegations: on April 28, 2016, Plaintiff injured his wrist
and began to experience severe pain and swelling. (Doc. 1, p.
6). Plaintiff went to health care and received a wrap and
ibuprofen. Id. On May 6, 2016, Plaintiff returned to
health care for X-rays. Id. The X-rays showed that
he “had a fracture in the mid-pole of the
scaphoid” in his wrist. Id. On May 27, 2016,
he was put in a soft cast. Id. On June 27, 2016, he
again received X-rays, and the fracture was still visible.
Id. “Dr. Shah knew [Plaintiff] was in
continued pain and that [his] wrist was not healing
properly.” Id. Plaintiff received another
X-ray on August 19, 2016. Id. On August 29, 2016,
Dr. Shah created a report that stated Plaintiff's wrist
injury was not urgent despite his knowledge that Plaintiff
was in pain and that his wrist was not healing properly.
Id. On September 12, 2016, Plaintiff was approved by
Dr. Ritz for surgery on his wrist. Id.
October 5, 2016, Plaintiff was sent to the Carle Physician
Group Ortho Clinic for a consult. Id. Wexford
Healthcare never forwarded Plaintiff's X-ray results to
Carle hospital. Id. On October 21, 2016, Plaintiff
had surgery on his wrist. Id. He went to a follow-up
in January 2017, during which Dr. Sobeski, who did the
procedure, told him that his wrist was not healing properly
and would require a second surgery. (Doc. 1, pp. 6-7). Dr.
Shah “knew of the pain [Plaintiff] was having with
[his] wrist as [his] pain medication went from 200mg to
600mg.” (Doc. 1, p. 7). Plaintiff's wrist has been
in continuous pain for over a year, and it has limited
mobility. Id. Despite this, Plaintiff was told that
he would have to wait 12-24 months for another surgery.
“has a policy and procedure in its own handbook for
‘cost considerations'” encouraging its
employees to “stay away from expensive medications,
MRIs, CT-scans, and surgeries because it is on a budgeted bid
with” the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”). Id. These doctors within
Wexford are incentivized by Wexford to stay under this
continued problems with Plaintiff's wrist could have been
avoided with proper treatment. (Doc. 1, pp. 7-8). “Dr.
Shah and Phil Martin the Healthcare Administrator clearly
knowing of the fracture to [his] wrist yet waiting several
months to have it treated was deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need.” (Doc. 1, p. 8). Phil Martin
“was directly involved in this suit as he gave the
approval months later to have [Plaintiff] sent to Carle
requests monetary damages and “to have the right
treatment/surgery to have [his] ...