United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Gilbert United States District Judge.
is a former detainee at the St. Clair County Jail (“the
Jail”). The claim in this action was severed on April
11, 2018, from Plaintiff's original case, Garrett v.
McLauren, et al., Case No. 17-cv-871-JPG (S.D. Ill.
filed Aug. 16, 2017), which was filed while Plaintiff was a
prisoner at the Jail. He has since been released from
custody. The original civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 included a number of other inmates as
co-Plaintiffs. All of the other co-Plaintiffs were dismissed
from the action before the instant claim was severed.
severed claim was designated as Count 4 in the original case,
described as follows:
Count 4 - Fourteenth Amendment claim for
failure to provide Plaintiff with an adequate sick call
procedure at the Jail.
(Doc. 1, p. 5).
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under §
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). 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. 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).
Although 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).
fully considering the allegations in Plaintiff's
Complaint, the Court concludes that this action is subject to
summary dismissal. However, Plaintiff shall be allowed an
opportunity to re-plead his claim if he still wishes to
portion of Plaintiff's Complaint that relates to Count 4
states that “the sick call procedure is broken”
at the Jail. (Doc. 2, p. 4). Inmates submit sick call
requests seeking medical care either through paper requests
or through a “kiosk” in the cellblock. Inmates
have submitted multiple requests without getting any
response. This occurs on a daily basis. “The medical
staff make a conscious choice not to reply to inmates call
for help.” Id. Because of this neglect,
inmates' medical issues go untreated. Inmates have
complained by submitting captain complaints, but have
received no responses to those grievances either. Plaintiff
believes this problem has been occurring for years.
seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction ordering the
Jail to address the sick call process so that inmates can see
a medical professional. (Doc. 2, p. 6). He also requests
money damages. Id.
Review Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
Court shall continue to refer to the claim in this action as
Count 4, consistent with the description of Plaintiff's
claims as set forth in the Order severing this case. (Doc. 2,
p. 6). The parties and the Court will use this designation in
all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by
a judicial officer of this Court. The designation of this
count does not constitute an opinion as to its merit. Any
other claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not
addressed in this Order should be considered dismissed
4 - Fourteenth Amendment claim for failure to
provide Plaintiff with an adequate ...