United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT, DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is now before the Court for preliminary review of the
First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Emon Shanklin.
(Doc. 8). Plaintiff is currently detained at St. Clair County
Jail in Belleville, Illinois. (Doc. 8, p. 1). He brings this
pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Id. Plaintiff claims that a Jail nurse
administered him the wrong medication on April 30, 2017.
(Doc. 8, p. 5). In connection with this claim, Plaintiff
seeks money damages from the nurse (Nurse April), the medical
provider (Wexford), and the Jail (St. Clair County Jail).
(Doc. 8, p. 9).
First Amended Complaint is now before the Court for
preliminary review 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.
alleges that Nurse April gave him the wrong medication at the
Jail on a single occasion, i.e., at 9:37 a.m. on
April 30, 2017. (Doc. 8, p. 5). When he realized the mistake,
Plaintiff “took the last pill out of [his] mouth”
and informed the nurse about the error. Id. In
response, Nurse April asked Plaintiff if his name was
“Steven Johnson.” Id. Another nurse then
checked Plaintiff's blood pressure. Id. While
doing so, she noticed his lips shaking. Id.
Plaintiff offers no other information in the First Amended
Complaint about the medication, the dosage, or other side
facilitate the orderly management of future proceedings in
this case, and in accordance with the objectives of Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 8(e) and 10(b), the Court deems it
appropriate to organize the claim in Plaintiff's pro
se First Amended Complaint into the following count:
Count 1 - Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendment
claim against the defendants for administering Plaintiff the
wrong medication at the Jail on April 30, 2017.
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 designation of this claim does not
constitute an opinion regarding its merits. Any other
claims that are encompassed by theallegations in the First Amended Complaint but not
identified above fail to satisfy theTwombly ...