United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dwayne Roebuck, Sr., an inmate in Lincoln Correctional
Center, brings this action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that
occurred at Vandalia Correctional Center. Plaintiff requests
compensation. 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.
put in to see Lillian Overall, a dentist, in August 2015 to
address his complaints of tooth pain. (Doc. 1, p. 5).
Plaintiff believed that the tooth needed to be removed.
Id. When Overall examined Plaintiff, she saw that
the tooth was infected and issued him a 2-week supply of
antibiotics and ibuprofen. Id. Plaintiff ran out of
medication, but when he asked for more, Overall told him that
it would “interfere” with the process and that
Plaintiff should wait until she was able to see him.
Id. Plaintiff had to wait 5 months for treatment;
and when he finally got a follow-up appointment for an
extraction, it was rescheduled by Atchenson, causing an
additional 3-4 day delay. Id. During this time
period, Plaintiff experienced pain, bleeding, and at times
could not eat. Id.
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into a single count.
The parties and the Court will use this designation in all
future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a
judicial officer of this Court. The following claim survives
1 - Overall and Atchenson were deliberately
indifferent to Plaintiff's tooth infection and pain in
violation of the Eighth Amendment when they delayed treating
him and failed to refill his medication.
officials impose cruel and unusual punishment in violation of
the Eighth Amendment when they are deliberately indifferent
to a serious medical need. Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 104 (1976); Chatham v. Davis, 839 F.3d 679,
684 (7th Cir. 2016). In order to state a claim for deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need, an inmate must show
that he 1) suffered from an objectively serious medical
condition; and 2) that the defendant was deliberately
indifferent to a risk of serious harm from that condition.
Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722, 727 (7th Cir.
2016). An objectively serious condition includes an ailment
that has been “diagnosed by a physician as mandating
treatment, ” one that significantly affects an
individual's daily activities, or which involves chronic
and substantial pain. Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d
1364, 1373 (7th Cir. 1997). The subjective element requires
proof that the defendant knew of facts from which he could
infer that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he
must actually draw the inference. Zaya v. Sood, 836
F.3d 800, 804 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)).
treatment may constitute deliberate indifference if such
delay exacerbated the injury or unnecessarily prolonged an
inmate's pain.” Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d
859, 865 (7th Cir. 2012) (internal citations and quotations
omitted); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
842 (1994). The Eight Amendment does not give prisoners
entitlement to “demand specific care” or
“the best care possible, ” but only requires
“reasonable measures to meet a substantial risk of
serious harm.” Forbes v. Edgar, 112 F.3d 262,
267 (7th Cir. 1997). Deliberate indifference may also be
shown where medical ...