United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE U.S. District Judge.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ...