United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MAURICE L. ROBINSON, #B10216, Plaintiff,
DAVID RAINS, TIMOTHY FRAPP, SHAH, PHIL MARTIN, and WEXFORD HEALTH CARE INC., et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. Yandle U.S. District Judge.
Maurice Robinson, an inmate at Shawnee Correctional Center,
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
deprivations of his constitutional rights that allegedly
occurred at Robinson Correctional Center
(“Robinson”). Plaintiff claims that the
defendants have been deliberately indifferent to his serious
medical issues, failed to accommodate his disability, and
violated his due process rights. (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: Defendant Shah, a medical doctor, refused
to provide Plaintiff with a cane after he requested one
“because it became difficult for [him] to walk”
long distances within the prison. (Doc. 1, p. 5). On February
13, 2017, Shah examined Plaintiff's amputated leg and
discovered irritation from where his leg rubbed into his
prosthetic. Id. Plaintiff asked about a cane to
alleviate the soreness, but Shah denied the request, claiming
that Plaintiff walked too well and that he could prescribe
pain medication to ease Plaintiff's pain. Id.
sent Defendant Martin, the Health Care Administrator,
grievances about this issue on January 28, 2017, February 26,
2017, and March 3, 2017. Id. Plaintiff was not given
a cane despite him sending these grievances. Id.
March 3, 2017, Plaintiff was approached by C/O McNair about
him no longer being “on the slow walker permit or
memorandum for A.D.A. participants.” Id.
Plaintiff had been assigned an ADA attendant, Mark Stanko,
because his leg was bothering him. (Doc. 1, p. 8). On March
3, 2017, Defendant Frapp noted that he felt Plaintiff did not
need an ADA attendant for help because he thought Plaintiff
could carry his own tray. (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6). Lieutenant Frapp
then fired Stanko and had C/O McNair write him a disciplinary
ticket for assisting Plaintiff. (Doc. 1, p. 8). Plaintiff
sent a grievance regarding these issues to Defendants Martin,
Shah, and Rains, as well as to Counselor Carrell and
Grievance Officer Erickson. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
March 3, 2017, Plaintiff spoke with Warden Rains about his
slow walking privileges and his cane situation, and he
responded that Plaintiff had concurred with Lieutenant
Frapp's decision to take Plaintiff off the slow walker
line movement. Id. Plaintiff grieved these issues.
Id. Plaintiff mentioned Frapp and Rains in his
grievance dated March 3, 2017. Id.
4, 2017, Plaintiff had an adjustment committee hearing for
which Frapp was the adjustment committee chairperson.
Id. Rains also signed off on two major infractions
with “2 months segregation, 2 months C-Grade, 6 months
revoke, and a disciplinary transfer.” Id.
arriving at Shawnee Correctional Center, Plaintiff was placed
in segregation for 42 days. Id. He was screened by a
nurse on August 31, 2017. Id. His leg was irritated
during this time, and the nurse put Plaintiff in to see
someone for a cane. Id. On September 7, 2017,
Plaintiff was seen by a nurse who ordered him a
cane. Id. Plaintiff tried to grieve
this issue with the administrative review board, but his
grievances were denied. Id. Plaintiff is awaiting a
response on certain matters pertaining to his July 2, 2017
and October 16, 2017 grievances regarding the violation of
his due process right to a fair hearing by Frapp and Rains.
further alleges that Wexford “has a widespread practice
of understaffing (Robinson Corr. Center) medical staff so
prisoners are unable to obtain the treatment they
[require].” (Doc. 1, p. 10). Wexford also allegedly
“lacks a procedure for the treatment of individuals who
don't react to normal numbing [techniques].”
requests monetary damages, unspecified injunctive relief, a
declaratory judgment, “restoration of good time,
” and “expungement of record.” (Doc. 1, p.
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the prose action into
3 Counts. The parties and the Court will use these
designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless
otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. The