United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN U.S. District Judge.
Wesley Phillips, an inmate in Lawrence Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks
damages. This case is now before the Court for a preliminary
review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
(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.
suffered a seizure and was transferred to an outside hospital
on March 15, 2017. (Doc. 1, p. 9). His restraints were
removed for a doctor's examination, but after the
examination was over, Riggs handcuffed him too tightly.
Id. Plaintiff told Riggs that the handcuffs were
cutting off his circulation, but his pleas were ignored.
Id. Doe also examined the handcuffs and told Riggs
that they looked tight, but took no action. Id.
asked Riggs again to loosen the cuffs, at which point Riggs
grabbed the restraints and clicked them tighter, causing
severe pain in Plaintiff's hands and fingers.
Id. Doe failed to intervene. Id.
was then airlifted to Champaign, Illinois. (Doc. 1, p. 10).
He told the tech that he was in unbearable pain due to the
handcuffs, but Riggs told the technician that Plaintiff would
be fine. Id. Plaintiff was strapped to a gurney for
the flight; the gurney made his restraints more painful.
Id. Plaintiff lost feeling in his right hand during
the flight. Id. Upon arrival at the hospital,
Plaintiff asked Riggs for medical personnel to examine his
hands; Riggs ignored the request. Id. Plaintiff
experienced spasms and pain in his right hand for the next 4
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into 2 counts. The
parties and the Court will use these designations in all
future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a
judicial officer of this Court. The following claims survive
Count 1 - Riggs and John Doe used excessive
force on Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment when
Riggs applied overly tight handcuffs to Plaintiff and ...