United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Sharvelt Mister, a former inmate of the Illinois Department
of Corrections (“IDOC”), brings this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged
constitutional deprivations that occurred at Centralia
Correctional Center (“Centralia”). (Doc. 15).
Plaintiff claims he received inadequate medical and dental
care in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. He seeks
money damages and injunctive relief against IDOC, Wexford
Health Sources, Dr. Santos, Dr. Johnny, and Lisa
Second Amended Complaint is now before the Court for preliminary
review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the Court
to screen prisoner Complaints to filter out non-meritorious
claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of the Second
Amended Complaint that is legally frivolous or malicious,
fails to state a claim for relief, or requests money damages
from an immune defendant must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b). At this juncture, the factual allegations are
liberally construed. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance
Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
makes the following allegations in the Second Amended
Complaint (Doc. 15, pp. 1-30): After transferring to
Centralia on February 6, 2015, Plaintiff was denied adequate
medical and dental care for an undisclosed period of
time. (Id. at pp. 4-6). A specialist
diagnosed him with a wrist and neck fracture, lower back
injuries, and a stomach condition that required surgery.
(Id. at pp. 4-6, 8). Dr. Santos and/or Nurse Krebs
would not authorize surgery, refer him to a specialist for
further evaluation, or explore other treatment options.
(Id. at p. 11). They prescribed pain medication that
was ineffective. (Id. at p. 6). Plaintiff's
condition deteriorated and he still suffers from pain.
(Id.). During this same time period, Dentist Johnny
and/or Nurse Krebs refused Plaintiff's request for a
second set of dentures, despite his complaints of gum pain,
swelling, and bleeding caused by his “worn out”
set. (Id. at pp. 7, 12-13). Plaintiff maintains that
Defendants' failure to treat these conditions resulted in
unnecessary pain and suffering. (Id. at p. 9).
on the allegations, the Court finds it convenient to divide
the Second Amended Complaint into the following Counts:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against
Defendants for their deliberate indifference to
Plaintiff's wrist and neck fractures, back injury,
stomach condition, and resulting pain at Centralia beginning
Count 2: Eighth Amendment claim against
Defendants for their deliberate indifference to
Plaintiff's dental pain, swelling, and bleeding at
Centralia beginning in 2015.
other claim that is mentioned in the Second Amended Complaint
but not addressed herein is considered dismissed without
prejudice as inadequately pled under
must be dismissed from this action at the outset. The
Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal court against the
State and its agencies for money damages. Will v. Mich.
Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989);
Wynn v. Southward, 251 F.3d 588, 592 (7th Cir.
2001). As this case now only involves a request for money
damages, IDOC will be dismissed with prejudice on grounds of
1 and 2
Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment of
inmates by prison officials. U.S. Const. amend. VIII. An
Eighth Amendment claim for the denial of medical or dental
care requires a plaintiff to show that (1) he suffered from a
serious medical condition (objective element); and (2) each
defendant was deliberately indifferent to a risk of serious
harm from that condition (subjective element). Roe v.
Elyea, 631 F.3d 843, 857 (7th Cir. 2011). A condition
that significantly affects an individual's daily
activities or involves chronic and substantial pain is
considered objectively serious. Gutierrez v. Peters,
111 F.3d 1364, 1373 (7th Cir. 1997); Berry v.
Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 440 (7th Cir. 2010). The medical
and dental conditions described in the Complaint satisfy the
objective component of this claim at screening.
disregarding the condition or persisting in an ineffective
course of treatment satisfies the subjective element.
Conley v. Birch, 796 F.3d 742, 747 (7th Cir. 2015)
(citations omitted). To state a valid claim, however, the
allegations must at least suggest that the defendant was
personally responsible for the constitutional deprivation.
Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir.
2001) (citations omitted) (personal responsibility may arise
where the individual directly participates in, directs, or
condones the conduct causing the violation). With respect to
Count 1, the allegations suggest that Dr. Santos and Nurse
Krebs responded to Plaintiff's fractured wrist and neck,
back injuries, and stomach issues with deliberate
indifference by prescribing ineffective pain medication and
nothing more. Conley, 796 F.3d at 747 (provision of
ibuprofen and ice pack to inmate suffering suspected fracture
may amount to deliberate indifference). With respect to Count