United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL, United States District Judge.
Lloyd Saterfield, an inmate in Menard Correctional Center,
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. In his
Complaint, Plaintiff claims the defendants have been
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical issues in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 1).
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
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.
careful review of the Complaint and supporting exhibits, this
case survives the Court's threshold screening.
Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff makes the following
allegations: near the end of 2013, Plaintiff began to have
chronic lower back pain that made it hard for him to work,
sit up to write or read, and, at times, leave his cell for
meals and activities. (Doc. 1, p. 3). Plaintiff submitted a
nurse sick call about this issue. Id. After he spoke
with the nurse, he was given 600mg of Ibuprofen and was put
on the list to see the doctor. Id. At the
doctor's visit, Plaintiff was told that he was getting
old and had “a little arthritis in his lower
back.” Id. The doctor told him that he could
only give him some Ibuprofen to ease the pain. Id.
pattern continued until Plaintiff spoke with Dr. John Trost,
who ordered that Plaintiff be given an x-ray for chronic
lower back pain and right foot drop. Id. The x-ray
was performed March 24, 2014. Id. Dr. Trost found
that Plaintiff had minimal degenerative changes. Id.
On May 16, 2014, he submitted Plaintiff's name for a
consult with neurology for right foot drop and chronic lower
back pain. Id. On May 30, 2014, Plaintiff received a
Medical Special Service Referral Denial form, stating that
“Dr. Garcia UM Wexford denied neurology/neurosurgery
consult. Dr. Garcia UM Wexford recommended Dr. Trost reassess
inmate and perform a good neuro exam and represent. Dr.
Garcia also recommended onsite x-ray of C-Spine and Thoracic
Spine and represent with results.” (Doc. 1, p. 4);
(Doc. 1-1, p. 2). Dr. Trost ordered the recommended x-rays on
June 5, 2014, and the results came back as
“unremarkable cervical and thoracic spine
radiographs.” (Doc. 1, p. 4). Dr. Trost then put
Plaintiff in for an MRI because he was still having lower
back pain and right foot drop, and he could not work, sit up,
read or write, or leave his cell for meals and activities at
certain times. Id.
August 4, 2014, Plaintiff got an MRI of his lumbar spine.
Id. It revealed a “bilateral lateral recess
narrowing related to a disc bulge with moderate bilateral
foraminal stenosis at L-4, L-5, bilateral ligamentous
thickening, facet arthropathy, and facet effusions.”
Id. Also shown was a “bilateral recess
narrowing with facet disease at L-5, S-1, but no canal or
foraminal stenosis.” Id. After receiving these
results, Dr. Trost submitted Plaintiff to see a spine surgeon
on September 11, 2014. Id. On September 15, 2014,
Wexford recommended that Dr. Trost “gather more
information and represent if necessary.” (Doc. 1, p.
5). Dr. Trost told Plaintiff that he was not sure what else
Wexford wanted, and he thought it was just trying to save
money. Id. He told Plaintiff he could give him more
Ibuprofen, and he recommended Plaintiff file suit against
to the pain medication, Plaintiff's pain became
tolerable, so “he put up with it until June 6, 2017,
when he had to be taken to SIH Herrin Hospital for increased
colon content and kidney failure.” Id. At the
hospital, his labs showed that Plaintiff was “at the
verge of death.” Id. The kidney specialist at
the hospital advised Plaintiff ...