United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
AARON P. STULL, #S13367, Plaintiff,
M. SIDDIQUI, JOHN COE, M. MOLDENHAUER, and HOLLY HAWKINS, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Aaron Stull, an inmate who is currently incarcerated at
Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”), brings the
instant civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against four of his medical providers at Menard. (Doc. 1). In
the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was denied timely
and adequate medical care for his type 2 diabetes. (Doc. 1,
pp. 1-17). He brings an Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference to medical needs claim against Doctor Siddiqui,
Doctor Coe, Nurse Practitioner Moldenhauer, and Nurse
Hawkins. (Doc. 1, pp. 15-17). Plaintiff seeks monetary
damages against the defendants. (Doc. 1, p. 18).
Complaint is subject to preliminary review under 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. 2009). The Complaint survives screening under
his incarceration at Menard in 2013, Plaintiff was diagnosed
with type 2 diabetes after blood tests revealed elevated
blood glucose levels. (Doc. 1, p. 4). In an effort to bring
his blood sugar levels within normal range, i.e.,
between 80 and 130, Plaintiff was prescribed Metformin twice
daily. Id. His prescription was increased from 500
milligrams to 1000 milligrams after weekly “blood accu
checks” showed persistent elevated blood sugar levels.
Id. Plaintiff routinely received 30-day supplies of
this medication between 2013 and 2017. Id. By
working closely with a member of Menard's nursing staff,
Plaintiff was able to effectively manage his condition. (Doc.
1, p. 7).
early 2017, however, his prescription for Metformin expired.
(Doc. 1, p. 4). Plaintiff submitted a refill request to the
prison's health care unit. Id. When he received
no response, Plaintiff submitted additional requests to no
avail. Id. By March 16, 2017, his blood sugar levels
approached 400. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Nurse Practitioner
Moldenhauer reviewed Plaintiff's lab work, but took no
action to treat him. (Doc. 1, p. 15).
nurse's notes dated April 24, 2017, indicated that
Plaintiff's blood glucose levels were still elevated.
(Doc. 1, p. 5). Beneath a similar notation dated May 10,
2017, Doctor Coe indicated that he would issue Plaintiff a
prescription refill. (Doc. 1, pp. 5, 15). Although the doctor
issued Plaintiff a refill for Metformin, he failed to refill
his prescriptions for ibuprofen (800 mg) and Capzasin HP,
which Plaintiff used for pain relief. (Doc. 1, pp. 5, 7).
in his medical records dated May 11, 2017, indicated that
Plaintiff's blood glucose levels had risen to 458. (Doc.
1, pp. 5, 7). Doctor Siddiqui reviewed these lab results and
added a note to “See Patient” on May 15, 2017.
(Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff continued requesting prescription
refills and medical attention through June 2017 without
receiving any response to his requests. Id.
6, 2017, Plaintiff began suffering from vision loss. (Doc. 1,
p. 5). An optometrist examined his eyes and recommended new
prescription eyeglasses. Id. The optometrist noted