United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
A. BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
plaintiff, proceeding pro se, and currently
incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center, was granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The case is now
before the court for a merit review of plaintiff's
claims. The court is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to
“screen” the plaintiff's complaint, and
through such process to identify and dismiss any legally
insufficient claim, or the entire action if warranted. A
claim is legally insufficient if it “(1) is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
reviewing the complaint, the court accepts the factual
allegations as true, liberally construing them in the
plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d
645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013). However, conclusory statements and
labels are insufficient. Enough facts must be provided to
“state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face.” Alexander v. U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422
(7th Cir. 2013)(citation omitted). The court has reviewed the
amended complaint and has also held a merit review hearing in
order to give the plaintiff a chance to personally explain
his claims to the court.
seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3).
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) provides that:
“In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or
appeal a judgment in a civil proceeding under this section if
the prisoner has, on 3 or more occasions, while incarcerated
or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a
court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds
that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is
under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff has, on three or more
occasions, accumulated strikes under Section 1915(g). See
Jones v. French, No. 13-CV-1556, ECF No. 6, fn 1 (C.D.
Ill., filed Nov. 22, 2013) (listing Plaintiff's three
Plaintiff may only proceed only if he alleges he is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury. The imminent
danger inquiry is two-pronged. The first prong is construed
narrowly to include genuine emergencies where “time is
pressing” and a “threat . . . is real and
proximate.” Heimermann v. Litscher, 337 F.3d
781, 782 (7th Cir. 2003); see also Lewis v.
Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002).
Furthermore, the harm must be occurring “at the time
the complaint is filed.” Ciarpaglini v. Saini,
352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003). The second prong, danger,
must be of “serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g); Fletcher v. Deathridge, 2008 WL
4724173, at *2 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 23, 2008).
alleges that prison medical staff has adjusted the dosage and
type of pain medication he receives several times since
January 2019 in response to his complaints that the
medications and physical therapy did not fully eliminate pain
in his shoulders, arms, and hips. Plaintiff alleges that he
has been prescribed Tylenol, meloxicam, Kappra, and
diclofenac, separately or in various combinations, throughout
this time period, but that Defendant Tilden, the prison
doctor, denied Plaintiff's requests for narcotic pain
killers in May 2019. Plaintiff does not provide any
information regarding the underlying medical conditions that
cause the pain he alleges.
also alleges that he suffers from an unspecified dental
condition for which he has been referred to a specialist,
that he suffers from an ingrown toenail, and that he has a
mental health condition that causes him to self-mutilate.
Plaintiff's mental health treatment is currently being
litigated in another case. See Jones v. Kennedy, No.
18-1295 (C.D. Ill.).
allegations suggest that medical staff is addressing his
physical ailments, though maybe not in the manner Plaintiff
prefers. At any rate, Plaintiff's allegations, without
more information regarding the underlying conditions, do not
permit an inference that Plaintiff is under an imminent risk
of serious physical injury. Accordingly, the Court finds that
Plaintiff has not satisfied the imminent danger requirement.
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied.
Plaintiff may renew his motion for IFP within the deadlines
set forth below, but he must also file an amended complaint
that provides more information about his underlying medical
conditions, the treatment he has been receiving, and whether
he has been sent to the outside specialist.
1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis  is denied. Plaintiff shall, within 21 days of
this Order, pay the $400.00 filing fee in full; or, renew his
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. If Plaintiff
renews his IFP motion, he must also submit an amended
complaint that provides the information discussed ...