United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN U.S. Chief District Judge.
Sparky Jackson, an inmate in Centralia Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks
declarative relief, injunctive relief, and 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
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.
told medical staff that he was experiencing a burning and
painful sensation in his rectum on August 7, 2016. (Doc. 1,
p. 2). Plaintiff met with Dr. Santos soon after, who
diagnosed hemorrhoids and gave Plaintiff some cream.
Id. On August 25, 2016, Plaintiff informed Santos
that the cream aggravated his symptoms of burning and
swelling. Id. Santos told Plaintiff to continue
using the cream. Id.
was admitted to the infirmary on September 9, 2016 for
overnight observation due to a bloody bowel movement. (Doc.
1, p. 3). Santos examined him a few days later and once again
instructed Plaintiff to continue using the cream.
Id. Plaintiff filed a grievance regarding
Santos' course of treatment to Lisa Krebs. Id.
December 14, 2016, Dr. Garcia, who is not a defendant here,
examined Plaintiff and told him that he didn't have
hemorrhoids, but rather his rectum was torn, ripped, and
infected. Id. Garcia told Plaintiff to stop using
the hemorrhoid cream, as Garcia believed that it would
aggravate Plaintiff's symptoms. Id. Garcia
prescribed Cephalexin and antibiotic cream. Id.
Around this time, Plaintiff also started experiencing a foul
odor in his mouth. Id.
next time Plaintiff saw Santos, Santos discontinued
Garcia's treatment plan and gave Plaintiff fiber pills
instead. Id. Plaintiff's condition worsened, and
he began experiencing pain in his core and back, which
interfered with his sleep. (Doc. 1, p. 4). When Plaintiff
next saw Santos, Santos took a urine sample and directed
Plaintiff to drink more water. Id. Plaintiff filed
another grievance to Knebel, but she never responded.
underwent an x-ray, which showed mild congestion and bile
blockage. Id. Plaintiff was prescribed Famotidine,
and told that he needed an ultrasound. Id. Santos
later told him that the request for an ultrasound was denied
as unnecessary. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff told Santos that
none of the treatment was working. Id. Santos just
told him that pain was natural and he needed to drink water
and take fiber pills. Id. Plaintiff filed another
grievance to Knebel and Walker, which was ultimately ...