United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL District Judge
Emanuel Merriwether, an inmate in Pickneyville Correctional
Center, brings this action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff requests damages, as well as an emergency temporary
restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction to
require the Defendants to send Plaintiff to an outside
hospital or specialist. This case is now before the Court for
a preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, which provides:
(a) Screening - The court shall review, before docketing, if
feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after
docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner
seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for Dismissal - On review, the court shall
identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any
portion of the complaint, if the complaint-
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
action or claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable
basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Frivolousness is an
objective standard that refers to a claim that any reasonable
person would find meritless. Lee v. Clinton, 209
F.3d 1025, 1026-27 (7th Cir. 2000). An action fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The claim of
entitlement to relief must cross “the line between
possibility and plausibility.” Id. at 557. At
this juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se
complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v.
Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir.
careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits,
the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority
under § 1915A; portions of this action are subject to
alleges that Wexford, Baldwin, Lashbrook, Brown, and Love
conspired to violate Plaintiff's rights by instituting a
policy to refuse to provide adequate health care and
disclosing his medical information to security at his
institution. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff alleges that Wexford,
Baldwin, Lashbrook, Brown, and Love retaliated against him
for filing grievances and requesting daily health care visits
by instituting such policies. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
was admitted to the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC)
on January 8, 2016 at the Northern Reception Center
(“NRC”). (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff immediately
began receiving treatment for his vascular ulcers. (Doc. 1,
p. 6). However, Razi refused to provide several of
Plaintiff's treatments, and told Plaintiff that it is
Wexford's policy not to provide certain expensive
treatments. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff alleges that he saw a
memorandum listing treatments that Wexford would not provide
due to cost. (Doc. 1, p. 7). Plaintiff alleges that he saw
certain medications on that list that were later discontinued
at Pickneyville. (Doc. 1, p. 7). Plaintiff sent Lashbrook an
emergency grievance sometime after June 2016 that was never
returned to him. (Doc. 1, p. 7).
February 25, 2016, Nurse Jaime and Shirley discussed
Plaintiff's medical information together. (Doc. 1, p. 7).
Shirley, a security supervisor, directed Jaime to read
Plaintiff's medical records to him. (Doc. 1, p. 7). Later
when Jaime stepped out of the room, Shirley began paging
through Plaintiff's medical records. (Doc. 1, p. 7).
Plaintiff asked Shirley to stop, and he responded, “I
do what the hell I wanna do. This is no fucking secret. We
know you're a piece of shit.” (Doc. 1, p. 7).
Another officer, Walla, came to the door, and Shirley told
her about Plaintiff's medical records. (Doc. 1, p. 7).
Shirley said, “this dumb ass has been treating his
wound over 13 years, it's right over there in the
file.” (Doc. 1, p. 7). Walla walked off leaving
Plaintiff alone with Shirley, who continued to read his
medical files. (Doc. 1, p. 7).
claims his wounds are becoming larger with time and
frequently infected. (Doc. 1, p. 8). There is a discussion
about amputating his legs. (Doc. 1, p. 8). Plaintiff alleges
that his dressings have gone unchanged, causing his wounds to
fester and become infected. (Doc. 1, p. 8). All of the
grievances that Plaintiff has filed to Baldwin, Love,
Lashbrook and Brown have been denied because Plaintiff
“complains too much.” (Doc. 1, p. 8). Plaintiff
suffers from severe headaches, severely infected wounds,
depression, and blood clots. (Doc. 1, p. 9).
it is not clear from the body of the Complaint, based on
grievances Plaintiff has attached, it appears that the method
of his dressing changes was changed sometime around March
2016 and that Plaintiff disapproved of the changes. (Doc. 1,
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into five counts. The
parties and the Court will use these designations in all
future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a