United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MICHAEL M. MIHM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a former prisoner, filed a pro se complaint under
§ 1983 after having been released from custody.
Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) on his deliberate indifference and
conditions of confinement claims which arose at the Illinois
River Correctional Center (“IRCC”).
Plaintiff's petition to proceed IFP is reviewed under 28
U.S.C. §1915 (a)(1), rather than § 1915 (a)(2),
which applies only to incarcerated persons. Section 1915
(a)(1) “is designed to ensure indigent litigants
meaningful access to the federal courts.”
Christophel v. Brandl, No. 08-755, 2008 WL 5429658,
at *1 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 31, 2008) citing Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Before allowing a
litigant to proceed in forma pauperis, the court
must determine whether the litigant is able to pay the costs
of commencing the action. The court must deny an IFP request
if: (1) the allegation of poverty is untrue; (2) the action
is frivolous; (3) the action fails to state a claim; or (4)
the action seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant.
28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2).
has filed a petition for leave to proceed IFP[ ECF 3] and an
updated petition [ECF 4]. In the updated petition, Plaintiff
avers under oath that he has no job, that he lives with his
aunt, and that his total income if $191.00 per month in
public assistance. As it appears that the allegations of
poverty are true, the Court now reviews the complaint to
determine whether the action is frivolous, fails to state a
claim or seeks monetary relief against a defendant immune
reviewing the Complaint, the Court accepts the factual
allegations as true, liberally construing them in
Plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d
645, 649-51 (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. United States, 721 F.3d
418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(citation and internal quotation
marks omitted). While the pleading standard does not require
“detailed factual allegations”, it requires
“more than an unadorned,
Wilson v. Ryker, 451 Fed.Appx. 588, 589 (7th Cir.
2011) quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
February 11, 2019, Plaintiff began experiencing significant
abdominal pain which he attributes to a kidney stone. He was
seen by Defendant Nurse Hanun who admitted him to the prison
infirmary. Defendant Hanun also gave Plaintiff an injection
of Narco, a narcotic pain medication, which provided some
relief. When the pain later worsened, Defendant Hanun
administered another injection. Plaintiff appears to have
done better after this and, on the following day, February
12, 2019, was discharged by Defendant Dr. Osmundson.
day following his discharge, February 13, 2019,
Plaintiff's pain returned worse than before. He returned
to the infirmary where Defendant Hanun gave him another shot
of pain medication, presumably Norco. Defendant explained
that there was a shortage of beds and Defendant Officer Pow
provided Plaintiff with a mattress and sheets on the floor.
Plaintiff claims, however, that he saw an unused bed in the
hallway and, when he asked to use it, Defendant Pow refused.
claims that he continued to experience pain that night and
the infirmary was very cold. He asked Defendant Nurse
Robinson for something other than Norco and she told him
there was nothing she could do. Plaintiff complained to
Defendant Officer Flutter that it was only 16 degrees
outside, asking him to turn up the heat. Defendant Flutter
told Plaintiff he was unable to do so. Plaintiff does not
reveal whether he asked staff for blankets, indicating only
that he asked that the heat be turned up. Plaintiff also
complains of cold the following night, indicating that he
continued to sleep on the floor and that it was only 9
degrees outside. He offers nothing, however, to establish the
indoor temperature on either night.
following morning, Defendant Nurse Robinson administered him
six pills instead of the two Norco pills he was expecting.
Within 20 minutes, Plaintiff began experiencing whole-body
tingling, dizziness, and trouble breathing. He pushed the
emergency button which apparently did not work, as it made no
audible sound. Plaintiff was unable to summon Defendant
Robinson and had to wait until another nurse appeared at
change of shift.
Defendant Nurse Power came on duty, Plaintiff told her of the
symptoms he had experienced after receiving the unidentified
medications from Defendant Robinson. Defendant Power checked
Plaintiff's chart and apparently concluded that he had
been given medication intended for another patient. Defendant
Power returned with Defendant Miller, a Nurse Practitioner.
Defendant Miller apologized for the error and ordered that
Plaintiff undergo bloodwork. Plaintiff requested pain
medication which Defendant Miller refused, pending the
results of the work-up. He also asked Defendant Power for
pain medication and she, too, refused until the blood results
alleges that over the course of several days, he complained
of the cold to Defendants Miller, Smith, Robinson, Power,
Armstrong, Hanun, Pow and Flutter, to no avail. He also
asserts an unrelated claim that on February 15, 2019, he
requested cold medication from Defendant Nurse Armstrong.
Plaintiff claims that, despite the request, he did not
receive the cold medication until February 17, 2019, two days
Eighth Amendment safeguards the prisoner against a lack of
medical care that may result in pain and suffering which no
one suggests would serve any penological purpose.”
Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 750 (7th Cir.
2011)(internal quotations and footnote omitted).
“Prison officials violate the Constitution if they are
deliberately indifferent to prisoners' serious medical
needs.” Id. (citing Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). “In order to
prevail on a deliberate indifference claim, a plaintiff must
show (1) that his condition was ‘objectively,
sufficiently serious' and (2) that the ‘prison
officials acted with a sufficiently culpable state of
mind.” Lee v. Young, 533 F.3d 505, 509 (7th
Defendant Osmundson, Plaintiff pleads only that the physician
discharged him from the infirmary on February 12, 2019, after
his abdominal pain had subsided. This fails to plead
deliberate indifference and Defendant Osmundson is dismissed.
See Johnson v. Doughty,433 F.3d 1001, 1013 (7th
Cir. 2006) (doctor ...