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.

Mackk v. Wexford Health Sources

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

April 11, 2018

CARL ALPHONSO MACK, Plaintiff,
v.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, DAVID, SULLIVAN, and KASEY Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          HERNDON, District Judge.

         Plaintiff Carl Mack, an inmate in Shawnee Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks $1, 000, 000 in compensatory damages. 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; portions of this action are subject to summary dismissal.

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff arrived at Shawnee Correctional Center on August 29, 2017 from Stateville Northern Reception Center. (Doc. 1, p. 5). He alleges that he had a valid low bunk permit issued by medical providers at Stateville due to swelling in his feet, a complication from diabetes. Id. Security staff informed Plaintiff that his permit was not valid and that medical staff would have to issue a new one. Id. Plaintiff saw defendant Nurse Kasey, who also told him that his low bunk permit was not valid and that he would have to see the doctor at Shawnee to be screened for a low bunk low gallery permit. Id. Plaintiff tried to explain to Kasey that he needed the low bunk permit, but she told him there was nothing she could do. Id. Plaintiff was assigned to a top bunk and a top gallery. Id.

         On August 30, 2017, Officer Sullivan called medical and spoke with Nurse Laurel, who re-iterated that Plaintiff did not have a valid permit. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff was transferred into general population that day, and again assigned to the top bunk, top gallery. Id.

         Plaintiff fell out of his bunk on September 1, 2017, injuring his shoulder. Id. He was taken to the health care unit and given Motrin for shoulder pain. Id. Plaintiff's blood sugar was a low 59 at the time. Id. That same day, medical determined that his low bunk low gallery permit was valid and ordered him moved. Id. Plaintiff is still experiencing shoulder pain.

         Discussion

         Based on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into a single count. The parties and the Court will use this designation in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a ...


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.