United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE, U.S. District Judge
Reco Wilson, an inmate at Lawrence Correctional Center
(“Lawrence”), brings this action for deprivations
of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 for events that occurred at Menard Correctional Center
(“Menard”). Plaintiff money requests damages.
This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of
the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which
(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 any supporting exhibits,
the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority
under § 1915A; portions of this action are subject to
March 2011, Plaintiff developed a small, painful lump over
his spine, and began to seek medical treatment. (Doc. 1, p.
4). He saw Dr. Nwasbasi on June 22, 2011. Id. Dr.
Nwasbasi thought the lump might be a lipoma; he prescribed
Motrin and scheduled a follow-up visit within 2 months. (Doc.
1, p. 5).
had a follow-up visit with Dr. Nwasbasi on August 25, 2011,
during which Dr. Nwasbasi noted that the lump had not
increased in size. Id. Plaintiff alleges Dr.
Nwasbasi should have conducted tests to determine if the lump
was cancerous or surgically removed the lump, but Dr.
Nwasbasi refused to do either. Id. Plaintiff
submitted an emergency grievance to Defendant Rednour on
August 29, 2011, but Rednour did not acknowledge or respond
to the grievance. Id. The lump caused Plaintiff
constant pain and continued to grow. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
saw Dr. Moldenhauer for the lump sometime after November 21,
2014, and Dr. Moldenhauer refused to order an MRI.
Id. Instead, he referred Plaintiff to Dr. Trost.
Trost saw Plaintiff on December 15, 2014. (Doc. 1, p. 7). He
also refused to schedule an MRI for Plaintiff. Id.
Plaintiff submitted an emergency grievance regarding Dr.
Trost's refusal to Defendant Butler on December 18, 2014.
Id. Butler did not respond or acknowledge the
grievance. Id. Plaintiff filed a second emergency
grievance with the same result. (Doc. 1, p. 8).
next sought care for his lump from non-defendant Tindall on
January 3, 2016. Id.
received an x-ray of his thoracic and lumbar spine on January
11, 2017, and an ultrasound on February 14, 2017.
Id. Non-defendant Dr. Siddiqui referred Plaintiff
for an MRI, but Ritz denied the referral on April 11, 2017,
in favor of a conservative treatment plan of monitoring,
analgesics, and activity modification. (Doc. 1, pp. 8-9).
Siddiqui re-submitted Plaintiff for an MRI on May 4, 2017,
but Defendant Garcia denied the referral. (Doc. 1, p. 9).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Walls made the final
decision to approve or deny treatment in both instances.
Id. Plaintiff ultimately received an MRI ...