United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division
MERIT REVIEW OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, District Judge.
This cause is before the Court for a merit review, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, of Plaintiff Kirby William's claims and for consideration of his pending motions.
MERIT REVIEW UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A, the Court is required to carefully screen a complaint filed by a plaintiff who seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court must dismiss a complaint, or a portion thereof, if the plaintiff has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious, " that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id.
The test for determining if an action is frivolous or without merit is whether the plaintiff can make a rational argument on the law or facts in support of the claim. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A complaint fails to state a claim for relief if the complaint does not allege "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); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009).
In reviewing the complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as true and liberally construes them in plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 651 (7th Cir. 2013). Conclusory statements and labels are insufficient. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8; Schatz v. Republican State Leadership Comm., 669 F.3d 50, 55 (1st Cir. 2012) (holding that, in order to determine if a complaint states a plausible claim, the court must take non-conclusory, non-speculative facts as true, draw all reasonable inferences in the pleader's favor, and isolate and ignore statements that simply rehash claim elements or offer only legal labels and conclusions). Instead, sufficient 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)(internal quotation omitted).
William is an inmate within the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC"). William, at all relevant times, was housed at the Western Illinois Correctional Center. According to William, Defendants Dr. Baker, Terry Williams, and Pam Schlueter are IDOC employees, and Defendant Wexford Health Sources maintains a contract with IDOC to provide medical services to inmates within the IDOC.
William claims that he received a gunshot wound to his head in 1994. This gunshot wound left him blind in his left eye, left him without hearing in his left ear, and caused him to suffer Grand Mal seizures. William alleges that, when he arrived at the Western Illinois Correctional Center on February 6, 2012, he met with Dr. Baker, and the two of them reviewed William's medical history, including discussing the fact that William suffered from severe headaches.
William contends that on November 16, 2012, he began experiencing drainage from his left ear. William was then placed under observation and began receiving treatment. William further contends that Dr. Baker performed surgery on him that Dr. Baker was not capable of performing.
William has filed the instant suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. "To prevail in this section 1983 action, [William] must establish (1) that he had a constitutionally protected right, (2) that he was deprived of that right, (3) that [the defendant] intentionally deprived him of that right and (4) that [the defendant] acted under color of state law." Forrest v. Prine, 620 F.3d 739, 743 (7th Cir. 2010).
William asserts that Defendants violated his rights in two ways. First, William alleges that Defendants violated his rights protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. Second, William alleges that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. ...