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.

Oden v. Shah

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

November 27, 2017

DURANE ODEN, # M-47270, Plaintiff,
v.
VIPIN SHAH, DR. PHIL MARTIN, and WEXFORD HEALTH CARE, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Phil Gilbert, United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Robinson Correctional Center (“Robinson”), has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical condition. This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

         Under § 1915A, the Court is required to screen prisoner complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss any portion of the complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

         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 “no reasonable person could suppose to have any merit.” 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. Conversely, a complaint is plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Although the Court is obligated to accept factual allegations as true, see Smith v. Peters, 631 F.3d 418, 419 (7th Cir. 2011), some factual allegations may be so sketchy or implausible that they fail to provide sufficient notice of a plaintiff's claim. Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009). Additionally, Courts “should not accept as adequate abstract recitations of the elements of a cause of action or conclusory legal statements.” Id. At the same time, however, the factual allegations of a pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. See Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011); Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).

         Applying these standards, the Court finds that the Complaint is subject to dismissal under § 1915A, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. However, Plaintiff shall be allowed an opportunity to re-plead his claims in an amended complaint.

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff asserts that in May 2017, he sought treatment at the prison's health care unit for severe headaches, which he claims are caused by “a large lump that sit[s] on [his] forehead.” (Doc. 1, p. 6). On May 2, 2017, Dr. Shah saw Plaintiff and prescribed ibuprofen for him for 6 months. However, Plaintiff points out that the ibuprofen “does not fix the problem with the lump . . . which creates the headaches.” Id. Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendants deliberately denied him a CAT-scan and/or MRI, which could possibly determine the cause of the lump on his forehead that is causing the severe pain. Id.

         On June 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a grievance over his dissatisfaction with the allegedly inadequate medical treatment. Dr. Martin (Health Care Administrator) denied the grievance. (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6).

         Finally, Plaintiff asserts that Wexford Health Care (“Wexford”) deliberately denied him medical treatment, because Wexford “institutes polic[ies] and procedures that incentivice [sic] employees to provide less than adequate medical treatment to inmates so that cost considerations and budgetary concerns can be met.” (Doc. 1, p. 5).

         Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to require the Defendants “to provide medical treatment that will not cause other problems such as kidney failure by taking pain pills.” (Doc. 1, p. 7). He also seeks monetary damages. Id.

         Merits Review Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

         Based on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into the following counts. The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. The designation of these counts does not constitute an opinion as to their merit. Any other claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be considered dismissed without prejudice.

Count 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Dr. Shah, for failing to order diagnostic tests to determine the cause of the lump on Plaintiff's forehead;
Count 2: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Dr. Martin, for failing to order or approve diagnostic tests to determine the cause of the lump on Plaintiff's forehead;
Count 3: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Wexford Health Care, for maintaining policies that encourage prison medical providers to render inadequate medical care in order to save money.

         Each of the above Counts shall be dismissed without prejudice at this time, because the Complaint fails to state a ...


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.