United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Terrance Lovett, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) currently housed at
Pinckneyville Correctional Center, brings this action for
deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that, when he was
incarcerated at Vandalia Correctional Center
(“Vandalia”), Defendants were deliberately
indifferent to the injuries he sustained on February 8, 2016,
when he was assaulted by another inmate, resulting in
multiple facial fractures. In connection with these claims,
Plaintiff sues Craig A. Foster (Prior Warden, Vandalia), Dr.
Atuwape (Medical Doctor, Vandalia), Jane Doe (Nurse,
Vandalia), and John Doe (Correctional Officer, Segregation
Housing Unit, 11:00 pm to 7:00 am Shift, Vandalia). Plaintiff
seeks monetary damages.
original Complaint (Doc. 1) did not survive preliminary
review, and the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 9) is now
before the Court for screening 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. 2009).
First Amended Complaint
February 8, 2016, Plaintiff was assaulted by another inmate.
(Doc. 9, p. 3). Plaintiff was kicked in the face, resulting
in multiple fractures and leaving Plaintiff nearly
unconscious. Id. Plaintiff was taken to the
healthcare unit where he was examined by “several
members of the nursing staff” and Dr. Atuwape.
Id. After being examined, Plaintiff was transported
to the Fayette County Hospital. Id. Plaintiff did
not receive any treatment at Fayette County Hospital.
Id. Instead, a CT scan was performed, and Plaintiff
was returned to Vandalia with a copy of his test results (to
be reviewed by “the doctor at Vandalia”).
Id. After returning to Vandalia, Plaintiff was
placed in the infirmary, where he remained for two days and
three nights. Id. Plaintiff was then transferred to
disciplinary segregation. Id. Plaintiff was in
disciplinary segregation for two weeks. Id. During
this time, Plaintiff complained about his painful injuries,
but he only received Ibuprofen.
was released to the general population for a brief period and
then returned to segregation on investigative status.
Id. Plaintiff claims that his facial injuries were
“obvious” and that he repeatedly complained about
pain. Id. One or more unidentified correctional
officers commented that Plaintiff looked like he had a broken
jaw, and another correctional officer opined that Plaintiff
should be transferred to the infirmary (it is unclear whether
any of the referenced correctional officers is the John Doe
correctional officer identified as a defendant). (Doc. 9, p.
Plaintiff occasionally received Ibuprofen for his pain,
various unidentified nurses often denied Plaintiff's
requests for pain medication. (Doc. 9, p. 3). According to
Plaintiff, he complained to Jane Doe (a nurse) about his
injuries and associated pain. Id. Jane Doe told
Plaintiff she could not do anything. (Doc. 9, p. 4). She also
said she was only obligated to give Plaintiff Ibuprofen as
she felt was appropriate. Id.
Atuwape saw Plaintiff several times while he was in
segregation. Id. Plaintiff told Dr. Atuwape he was
suffering from severe pain and discomfort in the left side of
his face. Id. He also told him his facial injuries
were interfering with his ability to eat and sleep.
Id. Dr. Atuwape told Plaintiff nothing could be done
unless and until the administration authorized a medical
also saw Warden Foster several times while he was in
segregation. (Doc. 9, p. 5). Warden Foster observed
Plaintiff's injuries, and Plaintiff repeatedly complained
to him (both in person and in writing) about his severe pain.
Id. Warden Foster told Plaintiff he could not do
anything and said it was up to the medical staff ...