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.

Veall v. Illinois Department of Corrections

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

June 15, 2018

DARNELL VEAL, Plaintiff,
v.
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ROBINSON CORRECTIONAL CENTER, DAVID RAINS, PHILLIP B. MARTIN, VIPEN SHAH, MONICA A. CARRELL, BEAN, and WEXFORD MEDICAL E.C.T. Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          MICHAEL J. REAGAN CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Darnell Veal, a former inmate of Robinson Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.[1] 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).

         Upon 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 summary dismissal.

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff alleges that he has a tumor and suffers from back and neck pain and arthritis. (Doc. 1, pp. 8-10). Dr. Shah ignored his tumor, failed to order CAT scans, an MRI, or a biopsy, or refer Plaintiff to a specialist. (Doc. 1, p. 8). Martin also overlooked Plaintiff's complaints regarding his tumor. Id. The tumor continues to grow. (Doc. 1, p. 9). Wexford staff also overlooked the growing “structure” of the tumor. Id.

         Plaintiff also alleges that Shah ignored his complaints of pain and discomfort for 2 years, until Plaintiff was diagnosed with osteoarthritis on September 1, 2017. Id. Plaintiff also complained to Bean on April 29, 2018[2] about his pain, but Bean refused to provide him with any medical care. (Doc. 1, p. 8).

         Rains and Carrell both ignored Plaintiff's grievances regarding his health care treatment. (Doc. 1, p. 10).

         Discussion

         Based on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into 3 counts. The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by 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.