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.

Sims v. Jairret

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

May 30, 2018

TERRELL C. SIMS, #R32837, Plaintiff,
v.
KAREN JAIRRET, and NURSE MARSHA, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff 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 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 supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to dismiss this case without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

         The Complaint

         In his 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.

         Plaintiff 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.[1] (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 denials.” Id.

         Plaintiff 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).

         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 ...


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.