United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Marcus Rogers, an inmate in East Moline Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 relating to
Defendants' treatment of pain in Plaintiff's back,
neck, and shoulder at Robinson Correctional Center. (Doc.
14). This case is now before the Court for a preliminary
review of the Amended 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 Amended Complaint (Doc. 14) and any
supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to allow
this case to proceed past the threshold stage.
Amended Complaint (Doc. 14) contains the following
allegations: Plaintiff went to Dr. Shah in March 2016 for
“extreme pain” in his back, neck, and shoulder.
(Doc. 14, p. 4). Shah told Plaintiff he had a pulled muscle
and needed to lose weight. Id. Plaintiff's
“pain was so severe, [he] couldn't sleep nor could
[he] move [his] head and neck.” Id. Plaintiff
“went back to Dr. Shah again” because he was
still in pain, and he was given more ibuprofen, which did not
work. Id. Plaintiff “was in pain the entire
time.” Id. Plaintiff could barely move because
of the pain in his neck, back, and shoulder, as well as in
his arm at certain times. Id. Shah ordered X-rays on
March 18, 2016, but Plaintiff is unsure why because Shah told
him his problem could be a pulled muscle or arthritis, which
Plaintiff did not believe would show in an X-ray.
Id. Shah also told Plaintiff it could be a pinched
nerve but refused to give him medication. Id. Shah
knew that Plaintiff was in severe pain. Id.
April 18, 2016, Plaintiff asked Shah about an MRI, but Shah
responded by telling Plaintiff to lose weight and drink more
water. Id. Plaintiff asked Shah for an MRI again,
but Shah again responded that Plaintiff needed to lose weight
and drink more water. (Doc. 14, pp. 4-5). Plaintiff did not
receive the proper treatment, and his pain “was still
on the level 10 or higher.” (Doc. 14, p. 5).
Plaintiff's thumb was numb and he had pain in his back,
shoulder, and neck. Id. Shah was “very
unprofessional” and “not one time did Dr. Shah
touch [Plaintiff]” or “show concern about [his]
pain.” Id. Shah “never gave [Plaintiff]
a lay in.” Id. Plaintiff had to go to work in
severe pain. Id. “At this time a month and a
half went by.” Id. Plaintiff is still in pain,
and he has not received an MRI. Id.
April 19, 2016, Defendant Phil Martin “stated the
X-rays showed mild degenerative changes.” Id.
Plaintiff questions how the X-ray could show mild
degenerative changes since X-rays only show bones.
Id. Martin did not order an MRI for Plaintiff,
despite Plaintiff telling everyone that he did not have any
bone pain and that it was a pinched nerve. Id.
Plaintiff claims that “not one time did anyone show
concern” and “it's been over a year.”
Id. Plaintiff still has not received an MRI and
still has pain in his neck and shoulder, plus numbness in his
thumb. (Doc. 14, p. 6). Back pain comes and goes for
Plaintiff, and he has trouble sleeping at times. Id.
from Dr. Shah, Phil Martin, and Rogerick Matticks” did
not “step up” and order Plaintiff an MRI.
Id. “The above defendants clearly knew of the
Plaintiff's continuing problems and pain associated with
the problems in his neck and shoulders, yet ...