United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
HARLEY M. BRADY, # R-13122, Plaintiff,
DR. COE, and DR. AHMED, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Phil Gilbert, United States District Judge.
Brady v. IDOC, Case No. 17-cv-883-NJR (S.D. Ill.
Nov. 1, 2017), Plaintiff Harley Brady, an inmate in Lawrence
Correctional Center, brought suit for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Pursuant to George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir.
2007), four claims against Coe and Ahmed were severed from
that initial action to form the basis for this action, Case
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of
those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which
(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.
fully considering the relevant allegations in Plaintiff's
Complaint, the Court concludes that two claims in this action
survive threshold review.
allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 2) relevant to
this severed action are as follows: Plaintiff suffers from
chronic back and knee pain. (Doc. 2, p. 8). Plaintiff
associates these issues with his weight (265 lbs.) and a lack
of arch support. Id. Plaintiff has been issued a
back brace and an athletic compression knee sleeve. (Doc. 2,
p. 8). Plaintiff claims the braces provide insufficient
support and/or do not alleviate his pain. Id.
Plaintiff states that “Wexford staff and/or
doctors” have told him he cannot return to “3rd
shift dietary” because of his chronic back and knee
pain. Id. Nonetheless, they refuse to provide him
with a bottom bunk permit or appropriate work restrictions.
Plaintiff does not have a bottom bunk permit, he has to climb
into the top bunk. Plaintiff's knee and back issues make
it very difficult for him to do this. Id. Climbing
into the top bunk is also difficult because the bunkbeds do
not include a ladder. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff
must use the toilet and sink in his cell to reach the top
bunk. Id. Plaintiff has fallen several times while
attempting to climb into the top bunk. Id. At
various times, Plaintiff has requested a bottom bunk permit
from Coe, Shah (not a defendant), and Ahmed. Id. All
of these individuals denied Plaintiff's requests, despite
knowing he has fallen several times attempting to climb into
the top bunk. Id.
April 26, 2017, Plaintiff had a medical visit with Ahmed.
(Doc. 2, p. 9). During this visit, Plaintiff asked Ahmed for
joint supplements, an “actual” knee brace, and a
bottom bunk permit. (Doc. 2, p. 10). With the exception of
the knee brace, Plaintiff's requests were denied.
Id. On May 6, 2017, Plaintiff was called to medical
to receive his new knee brace. Id. Wexford medical
staff attempted to give Plaintiff the knee brace; he refused
it, because the new brace was another athletic compression
sleeve as opposed to an “actual” knee brace.
Id. Plaintiff asked to see Ahmed, but his request
was refused. Id. A nurse indicated she had spoken
with Ahmed and that was the brace he ordered. Id.
Plaintiff refused the knee brace and filed a grievance.
includes several additional allegations pertaining to his
medical visit with Ahmed on April 26, 2017. Specifically, he
alleges that he told Ahmed the pharmacist had not been
refilling his medication in a timely manner. (Doc. 2, p. 9).
In response, Ahmed “cut Plaintiff's medications
down.” Id. Ahmed also discontinued
Plaintiff's ibuprofen prescription. Id.
Plaintiff contends that he needs the ibuprofen for back pain,
knee pain, and headaches. Id. Over Plaintiff's
objections, Ahmed ordered Plaintiff icy-hot muscle rub for
his muscle aches. Id. Plaintiff contends Ahmed
reduced his medications and discontinued his ibuprofen as
retaliation for Plaintiff's complaint about the pharmacy.
Id. Plaintiff also states, however, that Ahmed told
Plaintiff the ibuprofen had to be discontinued because of
Plaintiff's liver enzyme numbers. (Doc. 2, p. 10).