United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
an inmate in the United States Penitentiary in Marion,
Illinois, brings this pro se action for alleged
violations of his constitutional rights by persons acting
under the color of federal authority. See Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff
claims Defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to his
back injury and associated pain, and that Defendants have
failed to treat his hernia.
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 any supporting exhibits,
the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority
under § 1915A; this action is subject to summary
to the Complaint, on March 8, 2016, x-rays revealed that
Plaintiff is suffering from spinal compressions and that his
disk space is narrowing “at multiple levels.”
(Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff claims that he has attempted to
receive necessary treatment for his back injury, including
pain medication, a back brace, and a “proper”
mattress, to no avail. Id. Plaintiff claims that
when he is examined by medical personnel, he reports that his
pain level is at a 9. Nonetheless, “they” refuse
to treat him, saying his pain is “unspecified.”
Id. Plaintiff also claims that “they”
know he has an untreated hernia, but have failed to treat it.
of Improper Defendant
has named the Health Services Division of USP Marion as a
defendant. This Defendant, a division of a federal agency, is
not a proper defendant in a Bivens action. See
FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 483-486 (1994) (federal
agencies are not subject to suit for damages under