United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Phil Gilbert United States District Judge
Joseph Eckert, a detainee in Madison County Jail (the
“Jail”), 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 mental
health issues in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Doc.
1). This case is now before the Court for a preliminary
review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
(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 allow this case to proceed
past the threshold stage.
Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff makes the following
allegations: Plaintiff was arrested and detained in Madison
County Jail in January 2018. (Doc. 1, p. 4). During booking,
Plaintiff was asked for medical information. Id. He
“told them about [psychological] issues.”
Id. The next day, Plaintiff was taken to the
infirmary for medical intake, where he further described his
medical history. Id. Plaintiff was not put on
medication, so after approximately one month, he put in a
sick call slip explaining in detail his medical situation and
“informing staff of [his] involuntary movement, hearing
voices, depression, and anger issues” as well as his
inability to sleep regularly. Id. Plaintiff also
verbally explained that he had been on medication since 2003
and provided “medical staff a list of medication [he]
was prescribed by several different psychologists and
[psychiatric] doctors and places from where [he] was
prescribed and received medication for [his]
condition.” (Doc. 1, pp. 4-5).
also explained that he received “S.S.I.” for
these medical issues and that he was not prescribed
medication on the streets because his S.S.I. payments and
insurance were revoked. (Doc. 1, p. 5). He further noted that
Chestnut Health Services helped him obtain identification so
he could get insurance in order to be placed in their crisis
center for “suicidal and medical issues.”
Id. He also told the nurse that on March 1, he was
supposed to see a psychiatrist, but because he was detained
he was “talking to her instead.” Id. He
continued that in May or June 2016, he was placed on
medication at the Jail for an attempted suicide and
depression. Id. The nurse confirmed that she could
see that in his file. Id. She also told Plaintiff
that the doctor likely would not put Plaintiff back on Ativan
because she did not like putting individuals on
“Benzoes.” Id. Plaintiff explained that
he did not care and that he only wanted relief. Id.
nurse told Plaintiff that she would make a call to Doctor
Jeffery Arendell and that there should not be an issue
starting Plaintiff on medication. Id. She advised
Plaintiff to start checking the “med cart” that
evening. Id. No medications came, however.
Id. Plaintiff inquired with guards about the issue,
and they informed him that the doctor denied him medication
because he had not received medications since 2015.
Id. This is not true because, as noted previously,
Plaintiff received medication while he was detained at the
Jail in 2016. Id.
believes this indicates that the doctor did not look into his
medical history or inquire at all into his case before making
the decision to deny him. (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6). Plaintiff also
believes this decision damaged him and that his treatment has
been “seriously and maybe permanently hindered.”
(Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff is a paranoid psychopath who is
bipolar and has manic depression, so he struggles with
dealing with everyday issues. Id. Plaintiff believes