United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
TONY N. FENNELL Y19999, Plaintiff,
MIKE DICKSON, DR. BLANKENSHIP, JOHN DOE 1, and JOHN DOE 2, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
brings this pro se civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at
Graham Correctional Center. Plaintiff brings claims
pertaining to his arrest and subsequent detention at the
Madison County Jail (“Jail”). In connection with
his claims, Plaintiff names Mike Dickson (Captain/Detective,
Madison County Sheriff's Dept.), Dr. Blankenship
(Physician, Madison County Jail), John Doe 1 (Unnamed Madison
County Deputy), and John Doe 2 (Unnamed Madison County
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
(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.
First Amended Complaint
September 10, 2015, following a traffic stop, Plaintiff was
arrested by John Doe 1. (Doc. 10, p. 5). At the time of his
arrest, Plaintiff was using crutches because he had recently
undergone “major surgery” on his left patella.
Id. Plaintiff was under strict instructions to not
place any weight on the injured leg because doing so could
cause irreparable damage. Id. Additionally, his
surgeon had prescribed pain medication and antibiotics for
the injured leg. Id. Although Plaintiff relayed this
information to John Doe 1, he did not allow Plaintiff to use
his crutches. Id. Instead, he told Plaintiff,
“Just lean on me.” Id.
was then transported to the Madison County Jail. Id.
Plaintiff claims that after arriving at the Jail, he spoke
with Captain Dickson. Id. He told Captain Dickson
about his recent surgery and explained why he needed his
crutches. Id. Captain Dickson told Plaintiff he did
not care about his surgery or about his injury. Id.
He also told Plaintiff that he would regret it if he did not
find a way to walk to the interview room without his
crutches. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff
“hobbled” to the interview room, experiencing
excruciating pain. Id.
next explained his situation to John Doe 2 and asked for his
crutches. Id. John Doe 2 stated, “You made it
to the interview room without them, you're fine without
them, you think you can walk for a Captain and not walk for
me, you can either walk or crawl I don't care.”
Id. Plaintiff then asked John Doe 2 to contact his
surgeon. John Doe 2 refused and said “if you can't
walk then crawl.” Id.
days after arriving at the Jail (between 3 and 7 days
according to Plaintiff), Plaintiff met with Dr. Blankenship.
Id. Plaintiff told Dr. Blankenship (1) about his
recent surgery; (2) that he was in excruciating pain; (3)
that he was being denied prescribed medication (pain
medication, antibiotics, and “psych meds”); and
(4) that he was being denied use of his crutches. (Doc. 10,
p. 5). Plaintiff also showed Dr. Blankenship his surgical
incision, which was still covered with a fresh
dressing/bandage and asked Dr. Blankenship to contact his
surgeon. (Doc. 10, pp. 5-6). Dr. Blankenship told Plaintiff
to stop complaining and further stated as follows:
I don't need anyone telling me my job, not you, not your
doctor, besides we only treat life threatening issues, you
came in this way it's not my problem, if you wanted
medical care you should have not got arrested.
(Doc. 10, p. 6).
claims that, as a result of Defendants conduct, he suffered
unnecessarily and has long-term, if not permanent, damage to
his left knee. Id. He claims that the Defendants
violated his constitutional rights as well as the Americans