United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Hamilton v. Woods, Case No. 18-cv-172-JPG-SCW (S.D.
Ill. Feb. 5, 2018) (“Original Case”), Plaintiff
Kenneth Hamilton, an inmate in Lawrence Correctional Center,
brought suit for deprivations of his constitutional rights
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to George v.
Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007), one claim against
Defendant Santos was severed from that initial action to form
the basis for this action, Case No. 18-cv-577-JPG.
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of that
claim 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.
2009). After fully considering the relevant allegations in
Plaintiff's Complaint, the Court finds it appropriate to
allow this case to proceed past the threshold stage.
allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 2) relevant to
this severed action are as follows: at least since March
2016, Plaintiff has had problems with his feet, including
cracking and swelling, thickening and blackening toenails,
and infections, resulting in mobility problems, excess weight
gain, an abnormal heartbeat, and an enlarged heart. (Doc. 2,
pp. 3-4). On October 25, 2017, Plaintiff was transferred to
Centralia. (Doc. 2, p. 4). He met with Defendant Santos and
was diagnosed with foot ulcers. Id. Santos
discontinued Plaintiff's antibiotics and “did not
provide him with any substitution to relieve him of the pain,
swelling, and infection.” Id. Plaintiff told
Santos he had a medical order from the Shawnee doctor for
special medical shoes, but Santos told him to buy shoes from
commissary. Id. “Plaintiff was left to walk
around in painful shoes purchased from the inmate
commissary.” (Doc. 1, p. 5).
Severance Order (Doc. 1), the Court designated the following
count to be severed into this pro se action. The
parties and the Court will continue to use this designation
in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed
by a judicial officer of this Court.
Count 2 - After Plaintiff was transferred to
Centralia October 25, 2017, Defendant Santos showed
deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical
needs involving his foot infection and ulcers, and pain
associated therewith, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
discussed in more detail below, Count 2 will be allowed to
proceed past threshold. Any other intended claim that has not
been recognized by the Court is considered dismissed without