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.

Millerr v. Larson

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

December 6, 2017

MARCUS MILLER, Plaintiff,
v.
LARSON, DEBBIE ISAACS, JOHN/JANE DOE 1, JOHN/JANE DOE 2, JOHN/JANE DOE 3, JOHN/JANE DOE 4, JOHN/JANE DOE 5, JOHN/JANE DOE 6, JOHN/JANE DOE 7, JOHN/JANE DOE 8, JOHN/JANE DOE 9, and WEXFORD Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          STACI M. YANDLE U.S. District Judge.

         Plaintiff Marcus Miller, an inmate at Centralia Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests monetary relief. 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).

         Upon careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; this action is subject to summary dismissal.

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff saw Dr. Larson on December 15, 2016, at which time Larson renewed his medication. (Doc. 1, p. 9). The 3-11 shift nurse gave Plaintiff his medication six (6) days later, including a pill that Plaintiff did not recognize. (Doc. 1, pp. 9, 18). The nurse told Plaintiff that she had double checked the orders before coming to pass out medication and confirmed that Larson had ordered Clonidine .4 mg for high blood pressure. Id. Plaintiff took the medication. Id.

         Later that evening, Plaintiff experienced dizziness and vomiting. Id. When the nurse came around to pass out medication the next morning, Plaintiff told her about his symptoms. Id. The nurse responded that sometimes the body takes a few days to adjust to new medication. Id. Plaintiff continued with the new medication. Id. He continued to experience dizziness and vomiting. Id. He also complained to the nursing staff and wrote sick call slips. Id.

         Plaintiff began refusing the medication on January 1, 2017. (Doc. 1, pp. 9, 19). The nurses told him that it was likely he was either given too much medication, or was experiencing an interaction between medications. (Doc. 1, p. 10). Two of the nurses put in requests for Plaintiff to see the doctor. Id.

         When Plaintiff saw Dr. Larson again on January 9, 2017, he asked about the medication. Id. Dr. Larson reviewed Plaintiff's chart and told him that he had not ordered Clonidine. Id. He told Plaintiff that the pharmacist had misread his handwriting and ordered the wrong medication. Id. Larson discontinued the medication that day and prescribed Tylenol and Pepto to address Plaintiff's complaints of dizziness and vomiting. Id.

         Plaintiff alleges that he continues to experience dizziness and nausea to the present day, but that Dr. Larson has declined to prescribe further treatment and told Plaintiff that it was all in his head. Id. Plaintiff wrote a grievance to Debbie Isaacs, complaining about the failure to treat his dizziness and nausea, but received no response. Id. Plaintiff also had a urinary infection in ...


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.