United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
currently incarcerated at Centralia Correctional Center
(“Centralia”), brings this pro se civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
raises claims of deliberate indifference to medical needs
(broken tooth and associated pain). The Complaint is now
before the Court for a preliminary review 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.
Saturday, June 17, 2017, Plaintiff's tooth “broke
off” while Plaintiff was eating ice. (Doc. 1, p. 7).
Plaintiff asked a correctional officer to contact the
healthcare unit. Id. After contacting the healthcare
unit and relaying the problem to individuals at the
healthcare unit, the officer advised Plaintiff he could not
be seen by a dentist without completing a healthcare request.
Id. Plaintiff immediately submitted the request.
Sunday, June 18, 2017, when Plaintiff did not receive a
response to his healthcare request, he spoke to another
correctional officer. (Doc. 1, p. 8). The officer told
Plaintiff that there was not a dentist on duty over the
weekend and Plaintiff would have to wait until Monday.
Id. Plaintiff submitted a second healthcare request
slip, labeling it a “dental emergency” on
Wednesday June 21, 2017. (Doc. 1, p. 9).
to the Complaint, Johnnie, the dentist at Centralia, received
Plaintiff's original healthcare request on Tuesday, June
20, 2017. (Doc. 1, p. 9). Plaintiff additionally alleges that
Johnnie received the second healthcare request on Thursday,
June 22, 2017. Id. Nonetheless, Johnnie did not
respond to the request until Monday, June 26, 2017.
Id. It appears that, at that time, Johnnie extracted
Plaintiff's broken tooth and provided pain medication.
(Doc. 1, p. 10).
Saturday, June 17, 2017, and Monday, June 26, 2017, Plaintiff
was in excruciating pain and was unable to eat or sleep
properly. (Doc. 1, pp. 8-10). Plaintiff did not receive any
treatment, including pain medication, until Monday June 26,
contends that Johnnie exhibited deliberate indifference to
his serious medical need by ignoring his healthcare requests
and delaying treatment until Monday, June 26, 2017. (Doc. 1,
pp. 9-10). Plaintiff alleges that Wexford is liable for
deliberate indifference because it maintained a policy or