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.

Haywood v. Shef

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

June 12, 2018

JOHN D. HAYWOOD, Plaintiff,
v.
SHEF, COLLINS, and TAMMY Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          J. Phil Gilbert U.S. District Judge.

         Plaintiff John D. Haywood, an inmate in Lawrence Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests damages. 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).

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff originally brought this claim in No. 18-cv-21-JPG-SCW. The Court determined that Plaintiff had not properly joined his claims and severed this one into the present action on March 2, 2018. (Doc. 1).

         As relevant to the claims in this lawsuit, Plaintiff alleges that he saw Dr. Shev/Shef[1] on November 24, 2017. (Doc. 2, p. 23). Shev/Shef took away Plaintiff's high blood pressure medication. Id. Plaintiff protested, and told Shev/Shef that it had taken him over a month to get his medications and that he was currently out of “Lasix.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that he was actually out of potassium, but that he got his medications confused because he takes close to 30 pills a day. Id. Shev/Shef directed Collins to figure out why Plaintiff didn't have his Lasix. Id. She responded by arranging for Plaintiff's cell to be shaken down, and falsely told the Lieutenant that Plaintiff reported that he had no medications. Id. When the guards found medication in Plaintiff's cell, he was then taken to segregation. Id. Collins told the officers that Plaintiff was only permitted to have his antibiotics; she never discovered that he was out of potassium. Id.

         That evening, Plaintiff went to the med line. (Doc. 2, p. 24). He received a higher dose of “Corey, ” which he alleges was a mistake because he had taken that medication earlier in the day. Id. He did not receive any high blood pressure medication or potassium. Id. The “Corey” made Plaintiff dehydrated, and he fainted. Id. Plaintiff was taken to the Health Care Unit, where Tammy decided that he had deliberately overdosed, and called internal affairs to investigate the incident. Id. Tammy also refused to give Plaintiff water until he told her what pills he took, despite the fact that Plaintiff was actually suffering from dehydration. Id.

         Plaintiff was finally admitted for observation. Id. He promptly drank 8 glasses of water and fainted again, this time hitting his head on the floor. (Doc. 2, p. 25). When he came to, he vomited. Id. Plaintiff was referred to the hospital. Id. He found the ambulance ride uncomfortable. Id. Plaintiff alleges that if Tammy hadn't told the EMT's that he overdosed, he would not have had to endure the ambulance ride, because all he needed was water. Id. Tests ultimately revealed no drugs in Plaintiff's system, but found low potassium levels. Id. . Plaintiff was disciplined for having pills in his cell. (Doc. 2, p. 26). He was never given his correct blood pressure medication. Id.

         Discussion

         The severance order designated a ...


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.