United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Phil Gilbert United States District Judge
Eric Hart, an inmate currently housed at Taylorville
Correctional Center, filed this pro se action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that,
when he housed at Shawnee Correctional Center
(“Shawnee”), Alfonso David, a physician,
exhibited deliberate indifference to his serious medical
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
Complaint (Doc. 1) 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.
prior to May 28, 2017, Plaintiff, a 52-year-old man weighing
300 pounds, fell from the top bunk of his assigned cell.
(Doc. 1, pp. 6, 10). Upon initial examination, a nurse
prescribed ibuprofen for pain and observed that Plaintiff had
a decreased range of motion, but no swelling. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
Subsequently, Plaintiff continued to experience pain in his
back, neck, and hip. Id. On June 5, 2017, after
informing healthcare staff that the pain medication was not
working, Plaintiff was examined by Dr. David. (Doc. 1, p.
Plaintiff described his pain and told Dr. David he feared he
would suffer another serious fall if he did not receive a
bottom bunk permit. Id. Dr. David provided Plaintiff
with Naproxen for his pain. Id. However, his request
for a bottom bunk permit was denied. (Doc. 1, p.
11, 2017, Plaintiff, once again, fell from the top bunk.
Id. Plaintiff was unable to move and security staff
transported Plaintiff to the infirmary under a “code
3” status. Id. Plaintiff remained in the
infirmary for approximately ten days. Id.
claims that, while he was in the infirmary, Dr. David
persisted in a course of treatment that he knew was
inadequate and ineffective. Id. Plaintiff also
claims that, despite his repeated complaints regarding severe
pain, Dr. David delayed appropriate treatment for non-medical
reasons. Id. Exhibits attached to the Complaint
provide the following additional information with regard to
Plaintiff's medical treatment while in the infirmary.
Hart was seen again 6/11/17 for a reported fall and
complaining of double vision, head pounding, decreased left
hand grasp. Hart was placed in the infirmary and kept there
until 6/21/17. While in the infirmary Hart was given
Napro[x]yn for his pain and x-rays were taken. The x-rays
results showed moderate osteoarthritis but no broken bones.
Since discharge from infirmary on 6/21/17 Hart had been given
low bunk, low gallery permit and to continue Motrin 600 mg