United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
A. BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
plaintiff, proceeding pro se, and currently
incarcerated in the East Moline Correctional Center
(“E.M.C.C.”), was granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. The plaintiff’s original complaint
was dismissed, with leave to file an amended complaint. The
plaintiff filed his motion to file amended complaint on June
27, 2016, which the court grants. The case is now before the
court for a merit review of plaintiff’s claims. The
court is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to
“screen” the plaintiff’s complaint, and
through such process to identify and dismiss any legally
insufficient claim, or the entire action if warranted. A
claim is legally insufficient if it “(1) is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
reviewing the amended complaint, the court accepts the
factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in the
plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d
645, 649 (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. U.S., 721 F.3d 418,
422 (7th Cir. 2013)(citation omitted). The court
has reviewed the amended complaint and has also held a merit
review hearing in order to give the plaintiff a chance to
personally explain his claims to the court.
plaintiff filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 claiming Dr. Rankin was deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical condition while at E.M.C.C.. The plaintiff
says he had eye swelling and pain caused by an orbital mass
condition, but each time he saw Dr. Rankin, the doctor
refused to provide anything for pain and misdiagnosed his
condition for five months.
misdiagnosis itself may not be a constitutional violation,
the plaintiff says the doctor refused to consider or treat
his pain, and he has lost vision in his eye. See Maus v.
Murphy, 29 Fed.Appx. 365, 369 (7th Cir.
2002)(“misdiagnosis by itself does not amount to the
kind of deliberate indifference prohibited by the Eighth
Amendment.”); Williams v. Guzman, 346
Fed.Appx. 102, 106 (7th Cir.
2009)(“misdiagnosis is insufficient to satisfy the
subjective component of the a deliberate indifference
claim…”); Gutierrez v. Peters,
111 F.3d 1364, 137 (7th Cir.
1997)(“[m]edical malpractice in the form of an
incorrect diagnosis or improper treatment does not state an
Eighth Amendment claim. The case will proceed on
plaintiff’s claim of deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need against Dr. William Rankin.
E.M.C.C. Officials, Medical Director or Health Care Provider
will be dismissed as plaintiff does not allege an official
capacity claim against them, but merely restates his same
claim against Dr. Rankin.
plaintiff states Grievance Officer Mark Williams and Warden
Christine Brannon failed to properly investigate his
grievance and/or denying his grievance. Documents show that
the grievance was referred to the medical department, which
noted that plaintiff had been seen repeatedly for his
complaints and that Dr. Rankin had provided warm compresses,
eye drops and ordered x-rays so nonmedical staff properly
relied on medical staff and had no reason to question the
care provided. (Doc. 9, p.3) The Seventh Circuit has
“previously stated that if a prisoner is under the care
of medical experts, a non-medical prison official will
generally be justified in believing that the prisoner is in
capable hands.” Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645,
656 (7th Cir. 2005); see also Arnestt v.
Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 755 (7th Cir. 2011);
see also Young v. Wexford Health Services, 2012 WL
621358 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 14, 2012)(Defendants’
failure to rule favorably on a prison grievance is not
actionable under § 1983).
plaintiff alleges two different eye surgeons from Eye Surgeon
Associates, in March and April of 2016, failed to diagnosis
and treat plaintiff’s medical needs. (Compl., pgs. 6)
“[A] defendant’s inadvertent error, negligence or
even ordinary malpractice is insufficient to rise to the
level of an Eighth Amendment constitutional violation.
Johnson v. Pala, 2012 WL 3020533 (S.D. Ill. July 24,
2012); see Duckworth v. Ahmad, 532 F.3d 675, 679
(7th Cir. 2008). Eye Surgeon Associates will
Illinois Department of Corrections will also be dismissed as
it is not a proper defendant under § 1983 because they
are not a “person” as that term is used in the
statute. Wright v. Porter County, 2013 WL 1176199,
*2 (N.D. Inc. Mar. 19, 2013)(“Wright also sues the jail
itself, but this is a building, not a “person” or
even a policy-making body that can be sued for constitutional
Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, the court finds that the plaintiff states an
Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifferent to a
serious medical need against defendant Dr. William Rankin.
Any additional claims shall not be included in the case,
except at the court’s discretion on motion by a party
for good cause shown or pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
case is now in the process of service. The plaintiff is
advised to wait until counsel has appeared for the defendants
before filing any motions, in order to give the defendants
notice and an opportunity to respond to those motions.
Motions filed before defendants' counsel has filed an
appearance will generally be denied as premature. The
plaintiff need not submit any evidence to the court at this
time, unless otherwise directed by the court.
court will attempt service on the defendants by mailing each
defendant a waiver of service. The defendants have 60 days
from the date the waiver is sent to file an answer. If the
defendants have not filed answers or appeared through counsel
within 90 days of the entry of this order, the plaintiff may
file a motion requesting the status of service. After the
defendants have been served, the court will enter an order
setting discovery and dispositive motion deadlines.
respect to a defendant who no longer works at the address
provided by the plaintiff, the entity for whom that defendant
worked while at that address shall provide to the clerk said
defendant's current work address, or, if not known, said
defendant's forwarding address. This information shall be
used only for effectuating service. Documentation of
forwarding addresses shall ...