United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE United States District Judge.
Deadric Willingham, currently incarcerated at Pinckneyville
Correctional Center (“Pinckneyville”), brings
this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. He also invokes the Federal Tort Claims Act. (Doc. 1,
pp. 1, 4). Plaintiff claims that Pinckneyville officials were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical condition.
The Complaint is now before the Court for a preliminary
review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
§ 1915A, the Court is required to screen prisoner
complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss any portion of
the complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks for
money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
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 “no reasonable
person could suppose to have any merit.” Lee v.
Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026-27 (7th Cir. 2000).
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. Conversely, a complaint is plausible on its face
“when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant
is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
the Court is obligated to accept factual allegations as true,
see Smith v. Peters, 631 F.3d 418, 419 (7th Cir. 2011), some
factual allegations may be so sketchy or implausible that
they fail to provide sufficient notice of a plaintiff's
claim. Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009).
Additionally, Courts “should not accept as adequate
abstract recitations of the elements of a cause of action or
conclusory legal statements.” Id. At the same
time, however, the factual allegations of a pro se complaint
are to be liberally construed. See Arnett v. Webster, 658
F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011); Rodriguez v. Plymouth
Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
these standards, the Court finds that some of Plaintiff's
civil rights claims survive threshold review under §
approximately October 17-18, 2017, Plaintiff took medication
that had been prescribed for his mental health condition by
Dr. Sara (mental health physician). (Doc. 1, p. 6). The
medication had the unwanted and painful side effect of
causing Plaintiff to have an erection that would not go away.
Plaintiff also suffered bleeding from his penis and ongoing
pain while on this medication. (Doc. 1, p. 7). As a result of
these severe side effects, Plaintiff sometimes stopped taking
his mental health medication, even though he needs this drug
to treat his serious mental health condition.
was sent to a doctor outside the prison on 5 to 7 occasions
for the erection problem. (Doc. 1, pp. 7, 12). On October 25,
2017, he was taken to the hospital for this issue. He was
released on October 27, 2017, and was sent back to prison
with a prescription. However, Pinckneyville staff did not
have the medication and told Plaintiff it would be ordered.
(Doc. 1, p. 7).
October 29, 2017, Plaintiff was sent to the Health Care Unit
at about 4:00 a.m. because his medication again had caused an
erection that would not go down. (Doc. 1, p. 9). At around
7:00 a.m., Unknown Nurse #1 saw Plaintiff, but refused to
give him any medical attention because she claimed he had
given himself the erection. Plaintiff was in so much pain he
could not stand up to walk. Plaintiff claims that he was
forced to sit in the hallway at the infirmary in pain for 16
hours because of Defendant Unknown Nurse #1 and the Unknown
Correctional Lt. (Doc. 1, pp. 10, 12). When a new nurse came
on at shift change, she realized that Plaintiff was in pain
and had been treated for this condition before. (Doc. 1, p.
was taken back to the outside hospital on October 29, 2017
for the erection problem. (Doc. 1, p. 8). He alleges that he
had not been given the medication that was prescribed for
this issue when he was released on October 27, 2017. (Doc. 1,
p. 10). He was released from the hospital again on October
30, 2017, with a 2-day supply of the new medication from the
outside doctor. When that ran out, Pinckneyville staff failed
to provide him with a renewed supply. (Doc. 1, p. 8).
November 1, 2017, Plaintiff was transferred to Stateville
Correctional Center (“Stateville”) on a court
writ. While at Stateville, Plaintiff was given the medication
he needed with no problems. However, when Plaintiff returned
to Pinckneyville on November 21, 2017, his prescription there
still had not been filled. He submitted a request slip
regarding the medication, and was told that Pinckneyville
staff were “still waiting on the meds.” (Doc. 1,
p. 8). The outside doctor's prescription for pain
medication was not given to him by Pinckneyville officials
until December 29, 2017. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
asserts that “Defendant Unknown Mental Health Doctor
Nurse” caused him to suffer from mental illness. (Doc.
1, p. 10). Defendants Unknown Correctional Lt., Warden Love,
Warden Jaimet, and the Unknown Warden of Pinckneyville
“failed to intervene in the medical denial when the
Plaintiff filed his grievance or when they were present with
him.” (Doc. 1, p. 10). The Complaint does not elaborate
on any personal encounters or conversations Plaintiff may
have had with these individuals. He claims generally that on
October 25, October 27, and November 21, 2017, he
“pleaded to the Defendants” for medical attention
and for medication to relieve the pain he was suffering.
(Doc. 1, p. 11). On November 25, 2017, he asked unspecified
Defendants for his 3-week checkup with the outside doctor.
Id. However, the Defendants ignored these requests
for pain medication and other medical help. As a result,
Plaintiff had to be taken to the hospital repeatedly. (Doc.
1, p. 12).
raises a claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs against all Defendants. He further claims that the
Illinois Department of Corrections and Pinckneyville
Correctional Center should be held liable on the theory of
respondeat superior. (Doc. 1, pp. 12-13). He seeks
compensatory and punitive damages. (Doc. 1, p. 13).
Review Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into
the following 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
designation of these counts does not constitute an opinion as
to their merit. Any other claim that is mentioned in the
Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be
considered dismissed without prejudice.
Count 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claim against Dr. Sara, for prescribing
Plaintiff a medication for his mental health condition that
caused him to have a persistent erection, and severe pain and
bleeding from his penis;
Count 2: Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claim against Unknown Nurse #1, for refusing and
delaying medical treatment for Plaintiff's painful side
effects from his medication on October 17-18 and October
Count 3: Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claim against Unknown Correctional Lt., for
delaying medical treatment for Plaintiff's painful side
effects from his ...