Benson v. Dombeck, 2:23-cv-00583

Sean T. Benson, an inmate at Waupun Correctional Institution, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging prison medical staff abruptly discontinued his Gabapentin (800 mg three times daily) on Feb. 8, 2023 without a weaning plan and did not timely treat his severe nerve pain.
Defendant Dombeck sent notes discontinuing Gabapentin after alleged disruptive behavior; Dombeck later terminated a March 7 face-to-face visit and ultimately prescribed carbamazepine on March 22.
Defendants Ann York and Gwendolyn Vick repeatedly responded to Benson’s health service requests reporting his pain and sleeplessness but, according to Benson, failed to provide adequate or timely medication.
Court granted Benson leave to proceed IFP (initial fee paid; remainder to be collected per 28 U.S.C. § 1915), and screened the complaint under the PLRA.
The Court concluded Benson’s allegations suffice at screening to proceed on an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Dombeck, York, and Vick.
The Court denied Benson’s motions to appoint counsel (failure to satisfy Pruitt factors) and for a TRO/preliminary injunction (no likelihood of success or imminent irreparable harm shown), and ordered defendants served and to raise exhaustion defenses via summary-judgment motion within 45 days of service.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Leave to proceed IFP / filing-fee payment	Benson sought to proceed without prepaying full fee; paid initial partial fee.	No opposition at screening.	Granted; initial fee paid; balance to be collected per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
Sufficiency of § 1983 claim (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference)	Discontinuation of long‑term Gabapentin without weaning and delays in treatment caused weeks of excruciating nerve pain, alleging a serious medical need and defendants’ deliberate indifference.	No merits briefing at screening; defenses not yet asserted.	Complaint survives screening: plausible Eighth Amendment claim against Dombeck, York, and Vick.
Appointment of counsel	Benson says he lacks legal training, imprisonment limits his ability, and case is complex.	No formal defense; Court weighed recruiting realities and Pruitt factors.	Denied without prejudice: Benson made no showing he sought counsel and the case is not presently so exceptional that he cannot litigate it.
Preliminary injunction / TRO	Benson asked for injunctive relief to prevent further constitutional violations and ensure medical care.	Defendants argued (implicitly by opposition to relief) that Benson did not meet the high TRO/PI standard.	Denied: Benson failed to show likelihood of success on merits or imminent irreparable harm; PLRA limits scope of injunctive relief.

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (establishes deliberate-indifference subjective and objective elements).
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (Eighth Amendment guarantees adequate medical care).
Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2005) (deliberate indifference standard in prisoner medical cases).
Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 2011) (delay in treating painful but non–life-threatening conditions may support deliberate indifference).
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings).
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard and reasonable inference requirement).
Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (standards for appointing counsel in prisoner civil cases).
James v. Eli, 889 F.3d 320 (7th Cir. 2018) (discretionary nature of appointing counsel).
Westefer v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2012) (PLRA limits on injunctions in prisoner litigation).
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction requires clear showing of entitlement).