United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN U.S. CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE.
s Plaintiff Tyron Lomax, an inmate in Pinckneyville
Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of
his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and 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
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.
is disabled and uses a wheelchair. (Doc. 1, pp. 6-7). He
alleges that he needs a hip replacement. (Doc. 1, p. 7).
Plaintiff was transferred to Pinckneyville on April 3, 2018.
(Doc. 1, p. 8). During the transfer, Plaintiff was dumped out
of his wheelchair by a guard not named in this action.
Id. Plaintiff was interviewed by Marsha Hill
(sometimes identified as Jane Doe in the Complaint) and told
her about the fall, the metal screws and plates in his hip,
and that he needed a hip replacement. (Doc. 1, pp. 8-9).
Plaintiff also told Hill that he was in chronic and
substantial pain as a result of the fall. (Doc. 1, p. 9).
Hill refused to send Plaintiff to the doctor or address his
chronic pain or other medical issues. Id.
was assigned to a cell with another disabled inmate who uses
diapers, catheters, and a urine bag. (Doc. 1, p. 9). Vaughn
refuses to open Plaintiff's cell to allow Plaintiff or
his cellmate to timely dispose of the used diapers and
catheters, or allow an inmate worker in to clean regularly.
Id. Vaughn also denies Plaintiff showers because
Plaintiff cannot move to the cell door fast enough to get in
line for showers. Id.
April 10, 2018, Plaintiff fell in the shower and was injured
because the chair in the shower was not ADA-compliant.
Id. Brown, the ADA coordinator at Pinckneyville,
failed to make the shower ADA-complaint and provide an
adequate shower chair. (Doc. 1, p. 10). The number of shower
chairs at Pinckneyville is insufficient generally.
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into 3 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 - Hill was deliberately indifferent
to Plaintiff's chronic pain in his hip, particularly
after he was dumped out of his chair on April 3, 2018 in