United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, DISTRICT JUDGE.
currently incarcerated at Big Muddy River Correctional Center
(“BMRCC”), has brought this pro se civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's
claims arose while he was confined at Pinckneyville
Correctional Center (“Pinckneyville”). Plaintiff
claims that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to a
serious medical condition. This case is now before the Court
for a preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A.
§ 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 some of Plaintiff's
claims survive threshold review under § 1915A.
brief statement of claim alleges that when he arrived at
Pinckneyville on an unspecified date, he had a cast on his
leg or foot. (Doc. 1, pp. 5, 7). The cast had been on for
only one month, and Plaintiff was supposed to use crutches to
walk. (Doc. 1, pp. 5, 7). Unidentified prison officials
(“they”) would not allow Plaintiff to use his
crutches, so he was made to walk on the broken foot.
Id. As a result, Plaintiff's foot started to
swell up. Plaintiff told Dr. Scott that his crutches had been
taken away. Dr. Scott said he would look into the matter, but
he never did. (Doc. 1, p. 5).
couple months later, Dr. Scott removed the cast. (Doc. 1, pp.
5, 7). Ever since then, Plaintiff has been unable to stand on
the foot, and the foot swells up. Plaintiff's leg has
also started to swell. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff claims that
Dr. Scott removed the cast too soon, and had Plaintiff begin
walking on it too soon. (Doc. 1, p. 7).
point, Dr. Scott sent Plaintiff to physical therapy to help
him with walking. However, Plaintiff continues to walk with a
very bad limp. He also has a lot of pain when he sits. (Doc.
1, p. 7). Plaintiff attaches a grievance dated June 5, 2017,
in which he states that the removal of his cast took place
almost a year before that date. (Doc. 1, p. 8). He went
several times to the Defendant Physical Therapist, who noted
blisters and other problems with Plaintiff's feet.
Id. Eventually, the Physical Therapist said there
was nothing more he could do for Plaintiff, and that he would
refer Plaintiff back to the doctor. However, that referral
was never made. Plaintiff had put in a sick call request for
his foot problems but had not received a response. (Doc. 1,
pp. 8-9). He is an “insulin-dependent diabetic”
and needs to address any foot conditions promptly. At the
time he wrote the grievance, Plaintiff still had blisters on
his foot. (Doc. 1, p. 9).
seeks monetary damages for the violation of his rights. (Doc.
1, p. 6).
Review Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into the following
counts. The parties and the Court will use these designations
in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed
by a judicial officer of this Court. The designation of these
counts does not constitute an opinion as to their merit. Any
other claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not
addressed in this Order should be considered dismissed
Count 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim
against Dr. Scott and the Physical Therapist, for failing to
properly treat the complications Plaintiff experienced from
his broken foot;
Count 2: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim
against John Does #1 and #2 (Correctional Officers in
Segregation), Wexford, and the Pinckneyville Warden, for