United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, DISTRICT JUDGE:
Brandon Owens, an inmate in Menard Correctional Center,
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. In his
Complaint, Plaintiff claims the defendants have been
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical issues in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 1). 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 allow this case to proceed
past the threshold stage.
Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff makes the following
allegations: on December 22, 2016, Defendant Tripp
“gave Plaintiff milk of magnesia, docusate sodium, and
diagnosed Plaintiff with constipation and had [him] returned
to his cell” when “Plaintiff came to [him] with
[his] face wet in sweat, bent over clutching his stomach in
excruciating pain.” (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6). On December 23,
2016, Plaintiff came before Defendant Kirk “visibly
unable to walk, complaining of unbearable pain in [his]
stomach, and [Kirk] did nothing, knowing Plaintiff would be
given no other medical care.” (Doc. 1, p. 6).
December 23, 2016, after Plaintiff complained to Defendant
Chadderton “of unbearable stomach pain stabbing in
Plaintiff's abdomen, ” Chatterton gave Plaintiff
two cups of milk of magnesia and returned Plaintiff to his
cell, knowing he would not receive any other medical care.
Id. On December 24, 2016, when Plaintiff came before
Defendant Frierdich complaining of “pain beyond his
ability to bare, confining Plaintiff to a wheelchair, and
leaving Plaintiff nearly unable to speak, ” Frierdich
gave Plaintiff Tylenol and put him in the hospital on a
24-hour liquid diet. Id.
December 24, 2016, “when Plaintiff, confined to a
wheelchair, complained of pain beyond his ability to
bare” that “started radiating to Plaintiff's
scrotum” while he was “nearly unable to speak,
” Defendant Walsh told Plaintiff that he was suffering
from kidney stones. Id. Hours later, Plaintiff was
transferred to Chester Memorial and immediately taken into
surgery for a “near fatal busted appendix.”
Id. Defendant Trost was repeatedly informed, from
December 22 to December 24, 2016, that “Plaintiff
complained of suffering excruciating, unbearable, stabbing
pain to his abdomen and scrotum, leaving Plaintiff confined
to a wheelchair nearly unable to speak with a busted
appendix.” (Doc. 1, p. 7). Despite this, Trost did
nothing until late in the afternoon on December 24, 2016.
seeks monetary damages and permanent injunctive ...