United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Phil Gilbert, United States District Judge
Bentz v. Maue, Case No. 16-cv-854-NJR (S.D. Ill.
Jan. 4, 2018), Plaintiff David Bentz, an inmate in Menard
Correctional Center, brought suit for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Pursuant to George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir.
2007), three claims against Defendants McGlorn, Kulis, Trost,
and Jane Doe were severed from that initial action to form
the basis for this action, Case No. 18-cv-18-JPG.
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of
those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which
(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.
fully considering the relevant allegations in Plaintiff's
Complaint, the Court concludes that this action is subject to
allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 2) relevant to
this severed action are as follows: on August 31, 2015,
McGlorn and Nurse Jane Doe met with Plaintiff. (Doc. 2, pp.
19-20). At the appointment, Plaintiff addressed miscellaneous
complaints, including his denial of a physical and dental
care. Id. He also complained of problems with an
ingrown toenail, his vision, neck pain, and jaw pain.
Id. However, Plaintiff alleges that nothing was
done. Id. Plaintiff submitted a request for
treatment of a spider bite, ingrown hair, dental care, and
neck pain on September 24, 2015. (Doc. 2, p. 21). Nurse Jane
Doe met with Plaintiff to address his spider bite, and
nothing else, the following day. Id. Plaintiff's
doctor call pass was cancelled on October 26, 2015.
December 20, 2015, Nurse Jane Doe saw Plaintiff for a second
spider bite or ingrown hair. (Doc. 2, p. 23). Doctor Trost
examined the spider bite on January 21, 2016. (Doc. 2, p.
25). At the appointment, the doctor also prescribed naproxen
twice daily for pain, ordered a second x-ray of his spine,
and recommended a follow up in four months. Id.
Although Plaintiff received a second set of x-rays on January
25, 2016, and naproxen from January through April 21, 2016,
he did not attend a follow up appointment with Doctor Trost
to discuss the x-rays of his spine. (Doc. 2, pp. 25-26, 29).
However, on February 18, 2016, Plaintiff met with Doctor
Trost about his spider bite and complained of ongoing neck
pain, prompting the doctor to increase his naproxen from 575
mg to 800 mg. (Doc. 2, p. 26). Plaintiff actually received
750 mg tablets, instead of 800 mg tablets. Id. He
complained of the error in his dosage to Nurse Jane Doe
during her rounds on February 23, 2016. Id. She
agreed to issue him new tablets in the correct dosage but
failed to do so. Id. Despite this, Plaintiff
received regular refills of naproxen between February and May
March 16, 2016, Plaintiff asked Officer Cross to take him to
the HCU for treatment of neck pain and swelling, pressure in
his head, right leg pain, and difficulty eating. (Doc. 2, p.
27). Cross declined to do so unless Plaintiff was
“dying or dead, ” instead instructing Plaintiff
to put in a sick call slip. Id. Plaintiff gave
Officer Cross two sick call slips. Id. Although
Cross gave at least one of them to Nurse Susan Kulis, she
refused to see Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff submitted a
third slip and was finally called to the HCU on March 19,
2016. Id. Without reviewing his medical records,
Nurse Kulis told Plaintiff that his cervical spine issues
were not serious. Id. She nevertheless agreed to
refer Plaintiff to a doctor, if he paid the additional $5.00
copay. Id. Plaintiff was again seen by Nurse Jane
Doe on April 19 and 20, 2016. (Doc. 2, p. 28). He filed a
grievance to complain about the “above issues”
and about being charged “double co-pays” on April
30, 2016. Id.
9, 2016, McGlorn met with Plaintiff and told him that he had
arthritis. (Doc. 2, p. 28). For the first time, McGlorn
increased Plaintiff's naproxen to 875 mg. Id.
After Plaintiff filed a grievance on June 15, 2016, to
complain about Nurse Jane Doe's failure to prescribe him
the correct dosage of naproxen four months ...