United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Michael J. Reagan District Judge
matter is now before the Court for consideration of the
Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Darrell Thurston,
Sr. (Doc. 23). Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at
Stateville Correctional Center (“Stateville”). He
brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights at
Stateville and Pinckneyville Correctional Center
Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff claims that medical
providers at both prisons provided him with inadequate
medical treatment for his high blood pressure. (Doc. 23, pp.
1-8). He asserts an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference
to medical needs claim against Vipin Shah (Pinckneyville
doctor), Evaristo Aguinaldo (Stateville doctor), Nurse
Practitioner Williams (Stateville nurse), and Wexford Health
Sources, Inc. (“Wexford”) (private medical
corporation). Id. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages
against the defendants, as well as medical
treatment. (Doc. 23, pp. 7-8).
Second Amended Complaint is now subject to preliminary review
under 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. As
part of the screening order, the Court will also consider
whether any claims in the Second Amended Complaint are
improperly joined in this action and are subject to
severance. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607
(7th Cir. 2007).
suffers from hypertension. (Doc. 23, p. 1). In the Second
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff claims that he has received
inadequate medical care for the condition since 2013. (Doc.
23). Doctor Vipin Shah allegedly prescribed him the wrong
medication at Pinckneyville, and Doctor Evaristo Aguinaldo
and Nurse Practitioner Williams have continued to do so at
Stateville. (Doc. 23, pp. 1-2). Plaintiff attributes this
inadequate medical care, in part, to Wexford, the private
medical corporation that staffs both prisons. (Doc. 23, pp.
Shah treated Plaintiff for high blood pressure during his
incarceration at Pinckneyville between April or May 2013 and
“early 2015” or the “summer of
2015.” (Doc. 23, pp. 1, 4). Doctor Shah
prescribed Plaintiff Clonidine, a medication that is more
commonly referred to as Catapres. Id. Rather than
reducing his blood pressure, however, the medication
increased it to dangerously high levels. Id.
Plaintiff's systolic pressure increased from
approximately 140 to 215, and his diastolic pressure
increased from approximately 70 to 110. (Doc. 23, p. 4).
Doctor Shah nevertheless continued to treat Plaintiff with
the same medication for approximately 18 months. Id.
physician at the prison, named Doctor Smith, discontinued the
medication in early 2015, after notifying Plaintiff that he
was suffering from kidney problems caused by Clonidine. (Doc.
23, pp. 1, 4-5). The doctor did not make any other changes to
Plaintiff's treatment regimen. (Doc. 23, p. 5). Following
the discontinuation of Clonidine, Plaintiff's blood
pressure dropped to more stable levels. Id.
summer, Plaintiff underwent kidney dialysis at a hospital
located in Marion, Illinois. (Doc. 1, p. 5). He was then
transferred from to Graham Correctional Center in Hillsboro,
Illinois. Id. Medical providers at Graham informed
Plaintiff that he was suffering from renal failure but placed
him back on Clonidine. Id.
transferred to Stateville in October 2015. (Doc. 23, p. 5).
There, Doctor Saleh Obaisi continued to treat Plaintiff with
Clonidine. (Doc. 23, p. 2). In addition, the doctor
prescribed other blood pressure medications. (Doc. 23, p. 5).
Plaintiff's blood pressure “skyrocket[ed]” as
a result. (Doc. 23, pp. 2, 5).
point before January 2018, Doctor Aguinaldo and Nurse
Practitioner Williams assumed responsibility for
Plaintiff's care after Doctor Obaisi passed away. (Doc.
23, pp. 2, 5). They continued to treat him with Clonidine.
(Doc. 2, pp. 2, 6). The medication failed to stabilize
Plaintiff's blood pressure and also caused additional
health problems. Id. Plaintiff required regular
dialysis. Id. He lost the ability to urinate on his