Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Robinson v. Rains

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

January 13, 2018

MAURICE L. ROBINSON, #B10216, Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID RAINS, TIMOTHY FRAPP, SHAH, PHIL MARTIN, and WEXFORD HEALTH CARE INC., et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Staci M. Yandle U.S. District Judge.

         Plaintiff 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 such relief.

         An 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. 2009).

         Upon careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to allow this case to proceed past the threshold stage.

         The Complaint

         In his Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff makes the following allegations[1]: 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.

         Plaintiff 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.

         On 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).

         Also on 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.

         On July 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.

         Upon 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.[2] 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. Id.

         Plaintiff 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].” Id.

         Plaintiff requests monetary damages, unspecified injunctive relief, a declaratory judgment, “restoration of good time, ” and “expungement of record.” (Doc. 1, p. 11).

         Discussion

         Based 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.