United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court for a preliminary merits review of
the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. On May 22,
2018, this Court ordered the claim in this pro se
action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (identified
as Count 4 in the original case) to be severed from
Plaintiff's original case, Terrell v. Shah, No.
18-cv-710-JPG-SCW. (Doc. 1).
is currently incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional
Center (“Pinckneyville”). The claim in this case
arose there, and was outlined by the Court in No.
18-cv-710-JPG-SCW as follows. For clarity, the Court shall
continue to refer to this claim as Count 4 in this action:
Count 4: Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claim against the John/Jane Doe Nurse #2, for
failing to deliver the promised medication to treat Plaintiff
for food poisoning.
Section 1915A, the Court is required to screen prisoner
complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss any portion
of the Complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks
for money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
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 “no
reasonable person could suppose to have any merit.”
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. Conversely, a complaint is plausible on
its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Although the Court is obligated to accept factual allegations
as true, see Smith v. Peters, 631 F.3d 418, 419 (7th
Cir. 2011), some factual allegations may be so sketchy or
implausible that they fail to provide sufficient notice of a
plaintiff's claim. Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574,
581 (7th Cir. 2009). Additionally, Courts “should not
accept as adequate abstract recitations of the elements of a
cause of action or conclusory legal statements.”
Id. At the same time, however, the factual
allegations of a pro se complaint are to be
liberally construed. See Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d
742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011); Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance
Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
these standards, the Court finds that Count 4 survives
threshold review under Section 1915A. Before the claim can
proceed, however, Plaintiff must identify the unknown Nurse
#2 by name.
does not specify the date when the John/Jane Doe Nurse #2
failed to treat him. On that day, Plaintiff and many other
inmates contracted food poisoning after eating dinner in the
prison's dietary department. (Doc. 2, p. 11). Plaintiff
was seen by the John/Jane Doe Nurse #2, and he told her about
his symptoms of light-headedness, vomiting, and
“constantly stool usage.” Id. The Nurse
was instructed to give out medication for this problem (which
the Court assumes was diarrhea). However, John/Jane Doe Nurse
#2 told Plaintiff she had left the medication behind and
would return with it later. Despite this promise of
treatment, the Nurse never came back to give Plaintiff the
medication. As a result, Plaintiff was left to suffer
“a lot of discomfort” without any treatment.
seeks monetary damages for the violation of his rights. (Doc.
2, p. 15).
Review Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court has
characterized Plaintiff's claim in this case as a single
count, as set forth above. The parties and the Court will use
this designation in all future pleadings and orders, unless
otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. The
designation of this count does not constitute an opinion as
to its merit. Any other claim that is mentioned in the
Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be
considered dismissed without prejudice. As explained below,
Count 4 shall proceed for further consideration.
4 - Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs
order to state a claim for deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need, an inmate must show (1) that he
suffered from an objectively serious medical condition; and
(2) that the defendant was deliberately indifferent to a risk
of serious harm from that condition. An objectively serious
condition includes an ailment that significantly affects an
individual's daily activities ...