Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Millerr v. Larson

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

June 4, 2018



          Staci M. Yandle U.S. District Judge.

         Plaintiff Marcus Miller, an inmate in Centralia Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for events that happened at Big Muddy River Correctional Center. Plaintiff requests declarative relief and punitive and compensatory damages. This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the Amended 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 Amended Complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; this action is subject to summary dismissal.

         The Amended Complaint

         Plaintiff originally brought suit on October 13, 2017. (Doc. 1). The Court screened the case pursuant to § 1915A on December 6, 2017 and dismissed the Complaint without prejudice with leave to amend. (Doc. 8). Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint on February 26, 2018. (Doc. 11).

         Plaintiff submitted a “Notice of Compliance” with his Amended Complaint alleging that the amended paragraphs 9-42 “reflect the actions of the named defendants, ” and that he submitted an affidavit in connection with Count 3, as previously required by the Court. (Doc. 11-1, p. 1). However, Plaintiff's statement of claims is almost identical to his earlier Complaint; he alleges many of the same facts. To wit: Plaintiff saw Dr. Larson on December 16, 2016. (Doc. 11, p. 2). As a result of that visit, his medication was changed. Id.

         The Amended Complaint omits the date Plaintiff first received the medication, Clonidine, but the original Complaint states that it was December 21, 2016. (Doc. 1, pp. 9, 18). Plaintiff balked at the new prescription, but the nurse confirmed that the prescription was accurate and Plaintiff took it on her advice. (Doc. 11, pp. 2-3). As a result of the new medication, Plaintiff experienced dizziness and vomiting. Id. After his symptoms persisted, he stopped taking the medication. Id. Again, the Amended Complaint omits the date Plaintiff stopped taking the medication, but Plaintiff's original Complaint alleges that he stopped the medication on January 1, 2017 - 11 days after it was first administered. (Doc. 1, pp. 9, 19).

         Plaintiff did not see Dr. Larson until the following week (on January 9, 2017). (Doc. 11, p. 3), (Doc. 1, pp. 10, 19). Larson recognized that the Clonidine was a mistake, discontinued it, and prescribed medication to manage Plaintiff's symptoms from the Clonidine. (Doc. 11, pp. 3-4). Larson also suggested that the pharmacist misread his handwriting. Id.

         Plaintiff alleges that he continues to experience dizziness and nausea to this day, and that Larson was deliberately indifferent to those symptoms until he was transferred out of Big Muddy. (Doc. 11, p. 4). He also alleges that Isaacs, the Health Care Unit Administrator, responded to a grievance regarding the failure to treat the dizziness and the nausea by ...

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.