United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
TERRELL C. SIMS, #R32837, Plaintiff,
KAREN JAIRRET, and NURSE MARSHA, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Terrell Sims, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections currently incarcerated at Pinckneyville
Correctional Center (“Pinckneyville”), brings
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged
deprivations of his constitutional rights. In his Complaint,
Plaintiff claims the defendants have 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
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.
careful review of the Complaint and supporting exhibits, the
Court finds it appropriate to dismiss this case without
prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff makes the following
allegations: Plaintiff was experiencing “painful
symptoms of pneumonia, ” so on May 18, 2017, he put in
for sick call. (Doc. 1, p. 5). He hoped to get his
prescription for Latordine refilled by the doctor at
Pinckneyville. Id. He had been prescribed Latordine
while in Stateville Correctional Center due to mold and birds
in the prison. Id. In response to his request,
Plaintiff “was seen but not properly examined by a
nurse named Marsha, who denied [his] request but told [him]
to drink water and work out and that [he] would be
fine.” Id. Plaintiff was charged $5 for this
visit. Id. Plaintiff asked to see a doctor, but
Marsha told him that he would have to see her two more times
in order to be considered to see a doctor. Id.
wrote an emergency grievance to Warden Jairret, which was
signed, marked as a non-emergency, and returned with no reply
on June 2, 2017. Id. The emergency grievance,
attached to the Complaint, explains that Plaintiff had
“severe allergic reactions” to mold and birds in
Stateville, and that he had been coughing, had chest pains,
and was having trouble breathing, among other things. (Doc.
1, p. 15). He also notes that Nurse Marsha told him to drink
water and exercise after he told her of his symptoms, despite
him also telling her that Latordine had helped him
previously. Id. On June 6, 2017, Plaintiff placed
the same grievance in the mail and addressed it to Counselor
Tacci. (Doc. 1, p. 5). It was returned ten days
later without a response. Id. Plaintiff sent the
same grievance to the grievance officer the day it was
returned to him, but it also was returned without a response
on July 6, 2017. Id. Plaintiff then mailed the
grievance to Springfield, and it was denied. Id. It
has been eleven months, and Plaintiff has “not seen a
doctor pertaining to this specific issue.” Id.
He has continued to suffer “as a result of their
believes “this institution, ” presumably
Pinckneyville, “is putting policy before principle
regardless of how sick you may be.” Id.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and to have his prescription
of Latordine refilled. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
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