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.

Bradbury v. Bagwell

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

April 3, 2018

JAMES BRADBURY, # 33970-086, Plaintiff,
v.
MS. BAGWELL, RANDALL PASS, P.A. CASTILLO, P.A. GRISWALL, P.A. BROOKS, and HEALTH SERVICES USP MARION, IL Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          J. PHIL GILBERT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff, 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.[1] 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.

         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).

         Upon 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 dismissal.

         The Complaint

         According 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. Id.

         Dismissal of Improper Defendant

         Plaintiff 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 Bivens). ...


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.