United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Kevin Puckett, formerly an inmate in Robinson Correctional
Center, brings this action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff requests damages for deliberate indifference. 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
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.
injured his right shoulder and arm on November 4, 2017. (Doc.
1, p. 6). Plaintiff was given a medium sling and a lay-in
permit, but he was not given a low-bunk permit. Id.
Plaintiff saw Dr. Shah on November 7, 2017, at which time he
requested a larger sling. (Doc. 1, p. 7). Plaintiff requested
a larger sling because he's a large man, weighs 260 lbs.,
and was experiencing tingling in his fingers and shoulders
due to the smallness of the sling. Id. Shah told
Plaintiff he would order x-rays and a larger sling.
Id. That evening, Plaintiff was climbing down from
the top bunk when he slipped and fell to the floor, hitting
his head and shoulder. Id.
was not called for x-rays until November 13, 2017.
Id. Shah told Plaintiff on November 20, 2017 that
the x-ray was negative and that the problem was largely
arthritic. (Doc. 1, p. 8). Plaintiff alleges that Shah has a
pattern or practice of diagnosing arthritis across the state
at various institutions in order to cover up for Wexford
Healthcare. (Doc. 1, pp. 8-9). Plaintiff saw 2 nurses on
November 21, 2017; they informed him that slings were
one-size-fits-all and that he would not be getting another
sling or an MRI. (Doc. 1, p. 8). Plaintiff saw Shah again on
December 11, 2017, and Shah told him that he did not need any
more tests. Id. When Plaintiff showed him that he
could not lift his right arm, Shah told him to start rehab.
(Doc. 1, pp. 8-9).
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into 2 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 following claims survive
Count 1 - Shah was deliberately indifferent
to Plaintiff's shoulder injury when he failed to order a
low bunk permit, a larger sling, and/or further testing in
violation of the Eighth Amendment;
Count 2 - Wexford has an unconstitutional
policy or custom of incentivizing employees to provide less
than adequate treatment to inmates so that cost
considerations can be met and they can stay under budget ...