United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Gilbert, United States District Judge.
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.
§ 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).
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).
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
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.
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).
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).
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.
Review Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
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
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.
the above Counts shall be dismissed without prejudice at this
time, because the Complaint fails to state a ...