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.

Stout v. Tim

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

February 16, 2018

GREGORY STOUT, Plaintiff,
v.
N.P.A. TIM, NURSE RIDGWAY, DR. BUTALID, C/O HAWK, and C/O REAMS Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          HERNDON, DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Gregory Stout, an inmate in Pinckneyville Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks declarative relief and compensatory damages. 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).

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff alleges that he was jogging in the #4 yard on November 4, 2017, when he fell and broke his leg. (Doc. 1, p. 3). Plaintiff was escorted to the health care unit. (Doc. 1, p. 4). Tim, a nurse practitioner, examined plaintiff and diagnosed him with a soft-tissue injury. Id. Plaintiff disagreed and told Tim several times that his leg was broken. Id. Tim gave plaintiff an ace bandage, ice, and Motrin. Id. Plaintiff was kept in the infirmary overnight. Id. About 20 minutes after being placed in an infirmary cell, plaintiff requested a doctor from the C/O. Id. Plaintiff's leg was pulsing with pain; he had never been in so much pain in his life. (Doc. 1, p. 5).

         Tim returned to examine plaintiff again. Id. He said, “The C/O said you w[ere] crying, but I do not see you crying now.” Id. Tim said plaintiff was stupid and didn't know what he was talking about. Id. Tim said he had 30 years' experience and he was not sending plaintiff to the hospital. Id.

         Later on, Ridgeway came in to distribute medication. Id. Plaintiff told her that his leg was broken and asked to be sent to the hospital. Id. Ridgeway said that was beyond her pay grade and not going to happen. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff asked her to go over Tim's head, but she only replied, “like I said, above my pay grade.” Id.

         Dr. Butalid examined plaintiff the next day. Id. He examined plaintiff's leg and ordered x-rays. Id. He also said plaintiff needed to go to the emergency room. Id. Plaintiff begged Butalid to send him to the hospital. Id. But Butalid did not order an ambulance, and so plaintiff had to wait until the following day before he was escorted to the hospital. Id. Plaintiff was finally taken to the hospital on November 6, 2017. Plaintiff never received x-rays at Pinckneyville, despite the fact that they have an x-ray machine on the grounds. (Doc. 1, pp. 6-7).

         Plaintiff was transported to the hospital by Hawk and Reams. (Doc. 1, p. 7). They shackled plaintiff by the waist and ankle, and when plaintiff could not walk, they dragged him into the van by his arms. Id. Hawk and Reams did not call an ambulance or even use the prison's ADA van. Id.

         X-rays taken of plaintiff's leg at the local hospital showed that it was broken in 4 places. Id. Plaintiff was scheduled for a referral with an orthopedic surgeon, but in the meantime, he was released back to the prison. (Doc. 1, pp. 7-8). Plaintiff was continually physically dragged to and from the transport van. Id. Plaintiff was not ...


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.