United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Phil Gilbert United States District Judge
is currently confined at the Chester Mental Health Center. He
has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming Dr. Sairwar as the only
Defendant. (Doc. 1, p. 1). The Complaint is largely
unintelligible. To the extent it can be understood, it
appears that Plaintiff is complaining about Dr. Sairwar's
failure to diagnose and/or treat Plaintiff's stomach
problem. (Doc. 1, p. 3).
Complaint is now before the Court for a preliminary merits
review. Plaintiff has also applied for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. 3).
Court can only decipher a portion of Plaintiff's
allegations. Interspersed among a number of incomprehensible
statements, Plaintiff indicates that Dr. Sairwar at some
point sent him to an outside hospital. (Doc. 1, p. 2). The
doctor laughed and called Plaintiff a nigger. Id.
Sairwar claimed that Plaintiff's medical results came
back normal, but Plaintiff is still sick. (Doc. 1, p. 3).
Plaintiff thinks the doctor tries to kill patients.
“They cannot explain why [Plaintiff's] stomach [is]
mess[ed] up.” Id. The doctor and nurse are not
doing their job. The federal court or FBI should order an
investigation. (Doc. 1, p. 3).
Complaint does not clearly state what relief Plaintiff seeks,
but he says, “the doctor half kill me[.]” (Doc.
1, p. 4).
Court previously noted in the order reviewing Plaintiff's
Complaint in another action he filed in this district,
Means v. Haper, No. 18-cv-590-DRH (Doc. 8 in that
case), Plaintiff's current confinement status at Chester
is unclear. A “prisoner” is defined in 28
U.S.C. § 1915(h) and § 1915A(c) as follows:
As used in this section, the term “prisoner”
means any person incarcerated or detained in any facility who
is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated
delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms and
conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or
complaint filed by a plaintiff who is a
“prisoner” under this definition is subject to
screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which directs the
Court to dismiss the complaint, or any portion of it, if it
is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from an
immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Further, a
prisoner-plaintiff is subject to the restriction set forth in
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which states:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a
judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section
if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while
incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action
or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed
on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the
prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
past, Plaintiff has been a prisoner at the Cook County Jail
and in the Illinois Department of Corrections, as shown in
his extensive litigation history in the Northern District of
Illinois. In 1997, the Northern District informed
Plaintiff that he had accumulated 3 “strikes”
within the meaning of § 1915(g), and thus was ineligible
to proceed IFP as a prisoner unless he could show he was in
imminent danger. See Means v. Dept. Corration [sic],
No. 97-cv-8057 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 25, 1997, Doc.
Accordingly, if Plaintiff is currently a
“prisoner” as defined in § 1915A(c), his
motion to proceed IFP will not be granted unless he shows
that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. The
current Complaint does not meet this requirement.
a complaint from a non-prisoner (such as a civil detainee)
who seeks leave to proceed IFP must survive a merits
screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). This section
(like § 1915A) directs the dismissal of the case if the
action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or seeks ...