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.

Gallo v. Prosise

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

August 21, 2019

CARL GALLO, #B18014, Plaintiff,
v.
NURSE PROSISE and MR. JASON, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM & ORDER

          STACI M. YANDLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Carl Gallo, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) currently incarcerated at Big Muddy River Correctional Center (“Big Muddy”), brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff alleges that Nursing Director Jason and Nurse Prosise retaliated against him for filing a grievance about inadequate medical care by charging him a $5.00 copayment for treatment of his gastroesophageal reflux disease. (Doc. 1, pp. 8-11). He asserts claims against both defendants under the First and Eighth Amendments. (Id.). Plaintiff seeks a court order defining “chronic condition, ” refunding him for all copayments charged for his treatment, and prohibiting future retaliation. (Id. at p. 12).

         The Complaint is now before the Court for preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the Court to screen prisoner Complaints and filter out non-meritorious claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of the 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).

         The Complaint

          The following allegations are set forth in the Complaint (Doc. 1, pp. 8-11): Plaintiff has been diagnosed by a physician with gastroesophageal reflux disease (“GERD”), a chronic health condition that causes acid reflux, indigestion, and heartburn, among other things. (Doc. 1, p. 10). He takes antacids to manage the condition. (Id.).

         After filing a grievance[1] to complain about inadequate medical care he received from Big Muddy's medical staff on June 19, 2017, Plaintiff became the target of harassment and retaliation by Nurse Prosise and Nursing Director Jason. (Doc. 1, pp. 8, 11). On June 20, 2017, Nursing Director Jason accused Plaintiff of giving the nurses a “hard time.” (Id. at pp. 8-9). The same day, Nurse Prosise met with Plaintiff at nurse sick call to discuss his request for more antacids and to complete the indigestion / heartburn protocol. (Id.). Prosise then instructed Plaintiff to sign a $5.00 copayment voucher for her services. (Id. at pp. 9-10). Plaintiff initially refused. (Id.).

         When Plaintiff asked Nursing Director Jason about the copayment requirement for his chronic condition, Jason assured Plaintiff that he could obtain refills of antacids every three days without a copayment. (Id.). Jason nevertheless allowed the copayment voucher to be processed. (Id. at p. 11). Since that date, Plaintiff has regularly been required to make a $5.00 copayment for treatment of his chronic condition.[2] (Id.).

         Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into the following enumerated counts:

Count 1: Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for filing a grievance against Big Muddy's medical staff on June 19, 2017, by verbally harassing him and charging him a $5.00 copayment for treatment of GERD thereafter, in violation of the First Amendment.
Count 2: Defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's chronic health condition by charging him a $5.00 copayment for treatment of GERD, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

         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. Any other claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed herein is considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under Twombly.[3]

         Discussion

         Count 1

         In order to proceed with a retaliation claim at this stage, Plaintiff's allegations must at least suggest that “(1) he engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment; (2) he suffered a deprivation likely to deter such activity; and (3) the First Amendment activity was at least a motivating factor in the decision to impose the deprivation.” Hawkins v. Mitchell, 756 F.3d 983, 996 (7th Cir. 2014) (citations ...


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.