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.

Jackson v. Santos

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

November 27, 2017

SPARKY JACKSON, Plaintiff,
v.
VENERIO SANTOS, JESSICA KNEBEL, SUSAN WALKER, and ANN LAHR Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          MICHAEL J. REAGAN U.S. Chief District Judge.

         Plaintiff 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 such relief.

         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 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. 2009).

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff 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.

         On 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.

         The 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. Id.

         Plaintiff 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 ...


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.