United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
E. SHADID UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cause is before the Court for merit review of the
Plaintiff's complaint. The Court is required by 28 U.S.C.
§1915A to “screen” the Plaintiff's
complaint, and through such process to identify and dismiss
any legally insufficient claim, or the entire action if
warranted. A claim is legally insufficient if it “(1)
is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.
a pro se prisoner, claims Dr. Kayira and Health Care
Administrator Howard were deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical condition at Graham Correctional Center.
Plaintiff first saw Dr. Kayira on June 23, 2017 for a bad
cough. The doctor noted Plaintiff had “light
bronchitis” and therefore prescribed amoxicillin and
another drug which is unreadable in the complaint.
Plaintiff finished the medication, his cough had not abated
so he again filled out a request for medical care. On July
10, 2017, Dr. Kayira found Plaintiff still had bronchitis, so
he ordered a stronger medication, Bactrim, for the next ten
days. Dr. Kayira also ordered a chest x-ray which came back
Plaintiff finished the second round of medication, he was
still coughing. Therefore he filled out a third request for
medical care and saw Dr. Kayira on August 28, 2017. The
doctor reviewed Plaintiff's medical chart and told
Plaintiff there was “nothing wrong with me and that I
was possibly mentally ill and that he would not see me again
for this problem.” (Comp, p. 5). The doctor then
directed the correctional officer to remove Plaintiff.
sent a “request” to the Warden concerning the
need for more health care and filed a grievance. (Comp., p.
5). Plaintiff received a response from Health Care
Administrator Howard again stating Plaintiff's x-rays
were normal and there was nothing wrong with him. Plaintiff
asked to be see a specialist, but his request was denied.
says he still has a lingering cough, but he has been denied
medical care. However, Plaintiff has attached medical records
to his complaint showing Plaintiff saw medical staff on May
25, 2017; May 30, 2017; June 15, 2017; June 23, 2017; July 8,
2017; July 10, 2017; August 11, 2017; August 28, 2017; and
October 8, 2017. (Comp., p. 7-22)
August 28, 2017 medical record indicates while Plaintiff
reported his cough had not improved, the doctor observed
Plaintiff was breathing normally and his chest x-ray was
normal. The attached July 12, 2017 x-ray report notes
Plaintiffs lungs were clear, and his heart and circulatory
system were within normal limits. (Comp., p. 22). The doctor
noted a possible underlying mental health problem and
referred Plaintiff for an evaluation. (Comp., p. 19).
has also provided his request slips and the responses
received from Defendant Howard. For instance in August and
September of 2017, Defendant Howard informed Plaintiff his
x-ray was normal, but “you may submit a request slip to
see healthcare.” (Comp., p. 24, 25). Defendant Howard
repeated the same information in her response to
Plaintiff's grievance. (Comp, p. 28, 29).
order to articulate an Eighth Amendment violation, Plaintiff
must allege Defendants were deliberately indifferent to a
serious medical condition. Farmer v Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 834 (1994). However, medical decisions, such as
whether one course of treatment is preferable to another, are
beyond the Eighth Amendment's purview. Mere
dissatisfaction or disagreement with a doctor's course of
treatment is generally insufficient. Snipes v.
DeTella, 95 F.3d 586, 592 (7th Cir. 1996).
may have difficulty establishing his cough is a serious
medical condition since he received two rounds of
antibiotics, he was breathing without problems, and an x-ray
returned negative. Nonetheless, for the purposes of notice
pleading, the Court will assume his persistent cough which
lasted over several months does meet this standard. However,
the record submitted by Plaintiff indicates he was repeatedly
informed he could still return to the Health Care Unit even
after his August 2017 visit with Dr. Kayira. If Plaintiff is
simply alleging he should have been sent to an outside
specialist, he has failed to articulate a constitutional
complaint is therefore dismissed for failure to clearly
allege a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. If
Plaintiff believes he can articulate a constitutional
violation, he may file an amended complaint within 21 days of
this order. However, Plaintiff must explain whether he made
any requests for medical care after the August 2017 visit,
and if so, what happened? The amended complaint must stand
complete on its own, include all claims against all
defendants, and must not make reference to the previous
1) The Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to
state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure