Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mitchell v. Wexford Corporation

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

May 24, 2018

ERIC DANE MITCHELL, #B88346, Plaintiff,
v.
WEXFORD CORPORATION, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          J. Phil Gilbert United States District Judge

         Plaintiff Eric Mitchell, an inmate in Shawnee Correctional Center, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. In his Complaint, Plaintiff claims Wexford Corporation (“Wexford”) has been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical issues in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 1). 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 such relief.

         An 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. 2009).

         Upon careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

         The Complaint

         In his Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff makes the following allegations: Wexford failed to provide adequate training for Nurse Carrol.[1] (Doc. 1, p. 5). This lack of training led to improper medical treatment by Nurse Carrol. Id. Nurse Carrol's actions “resulted in unnecessary pain and suffering.” Id. Wexford “has a legal duty to provide adequate training to Nurse Carrol and all other medical staff.” Id. Wexford's “failure to provide training is the [proximate] cause of Plaintiff['s] pain and suffering.” Id. Because of Nurse Carrol's “lack of concern and medical experience, ” Plaintiff has and will have liver problems for the rest of his life. Id. His enzymes are “out of whack and frequent urinating occurs.” Id. Plaintiff requests monetary damages. (Doc. 1, p. 8).

         Discussion

         Based on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to designate a single count in this pro se action. 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 regarding its merit.

Count 1 - Wexford showed deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment by failing to train Nurse Carrol.

         Any other intended claim that has not been recognized by the Court is considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.