United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. Yandle U.S. District Judge.
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
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 Amended Complaint and any supporting
exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its
authority under § 1915A; this action is subject to
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).
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.
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).
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.
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 ...