United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
JERMAINE L. BILLUPS, #B64691, Plaintiff,
JOHN BALDWIN, JENNA CAMPANELLA, PENNY GEORGE, and ALLEN BRUMMEL, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL United States District Judge.
Jermaine Billups, an inmate in Vienna Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks damages
and injunctive relief. 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
did not actually include a statement of claims with his
Complaint. Instead he attached a grievance. (Doc. 1, p. 5-6).
Plaintiff's grievance states that he has been having
problems with his eyes since prior to his time in custody of
the Illinois Department of Corrections began. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
He alleges that he saw Dr. Brummel three times regarding this
issue, and each time Brummel gave him eye drops, which failed
to help. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff alleges that his eyes are
getting worse, and although Brummel informed Plaintiff that
if the drops did not work he would refer him to an
ophthalmologist, Brummel had failed to do so at the time
Plaintiff filed his grievance. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into a single
count. The parties and the Court will use this designation in
all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by
a judicial officer of this Court.
- Brummel was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's
serious eye condition by failing to refer him to an
ophthalmologist and persisting in treating Plaintiff with eye
order to state a clam for deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need, an inmate must show (1) that he
suffered from an objectively serious medical condition; and
(2) that the defendant was deliberately indifferent to a risk
of serious harm from that condition. An objectively serious
condition includes an ailment that has been “diagnosed
by a physician as mandating treatment, ” one that
significantly affects an individual's daily activities,
or which involves chronic and substantial pain. Gutierrez
v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1373 (7th Cir. 1997).
“Deliberate indifference is proven by demonstrating
that a prison official knows of a substantial risk of harm to
an inmate and either acts or fails to act in disregard of
that risk. Delaying treatment may constitute deliberate
indifference if such delay exacerbated the injury or
unnecessarily prolonged an inmate's pain.”
Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d 859, 865 (7th Cir. 2012)