United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL, CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Shaune Burns, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) who is currently
incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center
(“Lawrence”), brings this civil action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his constitutional
rights. Plaintiff claims that Defendants have been
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by not
ensuring that he receives his medications on time. Along with
the Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and
Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 2). On July 17, 2019, the Court
denied Plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining
order and deferred ruling on his request for a preliminary
injunction and screening the Complaint. (Doc. 7).
Complaint is now before the Court for preliminary review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, any
portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious,
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
requests money damages from a defendant who by law is immune
from such relief must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b). At this juncture, the factual allegations of the
pro se Complaint are to be liberally construed.
Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816,
821 (7th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) and Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 2),
include the following allegations: Plaintiff suffers from H.
pylori, which is treated by taking the medication Omeprazole.
(Doc. 2, p. 3). Without this medication he becomes very sick,
is unable to eat or sleep, vomits blood, and suffers sever
pain, which feels like lava when vomiting. (Doc. 1, pp. 9,
39, 46; Doc. 2, p. 5). If his illness goes untreated,
Plaintiff's condition could progress into cancer. (Doc.
1, p. 46; Doc. 2, pp. 3, 5). While at Lawrence, his
Omeprazole medication has run out on three different
occasions. (Doc. 1 pp. 9, 23, 39). He has also experienced
delays in receiving refills for his other medications that
are prescribed to treat pain, high blood pressure, and mental
illness. (Doc. 1, pp. 26, 59-60; Doc. 2, p. 3).
in April 2018, Plaintiff was told that his medication had
been ordered, but he did not receive it for two weeks and, as
a result, developed an infection. Id. at p. 25. On
May 11, 2018, he saw a doctor who prescribed him antibiotics
to treat the infection. Even though he had informed staff
that he was allergic to penicillin, Plaintiff was given
amoxicillin and had an allergic reaction. Id. at p.
26. Id. A nurse came and retrieved the amoxicillin
from Plaintiff, but he was never prescribed a replacement
again ran out of his H. pylori medication on August 28, 2018,
and did not receive a refill until September 2, 2018.
Id. at p. 27. Two days later he saw medical and was
told by a nurse that “they have been having problems
get[t]ing the meds pas[s]ed out.” Id.
states that medical staff has told him to put requests in for
medication one week before the medicine runs out.
Id. at p. 22. As instructed, on May 19, 2019, two
weeks prior to running out of his medication, and again on
May 23, 2019, one week before running out, Plaintiff put in
medical requests for a medication refill. Id. at pp.
22, 24. He did not receive a refill until eight days after
the medication had ran out. Id. at p. 9. Because of
the delay, he became ill and was again prescribed antibiotics
for three weeks. Id.
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court designates a
Count 1 - Eighth Amendment claim against Cunningham,
McFarland, John/Jane Doe, Jane Doe, and Brookhart for
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs by failing
to ensure that Plaintiff received his medication refills in a
parties and the Court will use this designation 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
in this Order should be considered dismissed without
prejudice as inadequately pled under the
Twombly pleading standard.
order to survive preliminary review under Section 1915A a
complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,
” Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(a)(2), which includes “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 547. Although the
Court is obligated to accept factual allegations as true,
see Smith v. Peters, 631 F.3d 418, 419 (7th Cir.
2011), the Court “should not accept as adequate
abstract recitations of the elements of a cause of action or
conclusory legal statements.” Id. A complaint
must include “enough detail to illuminate the nature of
the claim and allow defendants to respond.” George
v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 608 (7th Cir. 2007).
brings his claims under Section 1983 and so to state a claim
he must allege that each defendant was personally involved in
the deprivation of a constitutional right. Matz v.
Klotka,769 F.3d 517, 528 (7th Cir. 2014). A government
official may not be held liable under Section 1983 on a
theory of respondeat superior- based on the
unconstitutional conduct of a subordinate. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal,556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). Additionally, “a
supervisor is not liable just because a complaint is made and
an effective solution is not forthcoming.” Ol ...