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.

Puckettt v. Wexford Health Care Sources

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

July 24, 2018

KEVIN PUCKETT, Plaintiff,
v.
WEXFORD HEALTH CARE SOURCES, and VIPIN SHAH Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          J. PHIL GILBERT, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff 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 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).

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff 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).

         Discussion

         Based 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 threshold review:

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 ...

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.