United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STACIM. YANDLE, United States District Judge.
Oscar Delgado, formerly an inmate in Robinson Correctional
Center, brings this action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He
seeks compensatory and punitive damages. This case is now
before the Court for a preliminary review of the Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:
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.
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.3d816, 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
2015, while playing basketball in the gymnasium, Plaintiff
was elbowed in the nose. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff was told
to put in for nurse sick call, which he did. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
He saw nurse Rice the following morning. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
Plaintiff reported severe headaches and Rice told him that
his nose was likely broken but that there was not much to be
done. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Rice gave Plaintiff 200 mg ibuprofen.
(Doc. 1, p. 6).
headaches continued. (Doc. 1, p. 6). One month later, he
returned to health care and received 325 mg acetaminophen.
(Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff continued to experience headaches
and blurry vision. (Doc. 1, p. 6). He saw Defendant Osmudson
and requested an x-ray or CT Scan. Defendant Osmudson
responded, "where do you think your [sic] at? Your [sic]
not at home, your[sic] in prison." (Doc. 1, p. 6).
Defendant Osmudson asked Plaintiff to track his finger, told
Plaintiff to try hot water on his neck and gave him 600 mg
ibuprofen. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Osmudson told Plaintiff the damage
to his nose was cosmetic and the prison would not fix it.
(Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff continued to experience severe
headaches, dizziness and memory loss. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
then saw Defendant Williams who ordered an x-ray. (Doc. 1, p.
7). Defendant Williams told Plaintiff he doesn't like
helping inmates unless he knows the medical issue is red.
(Doc. 1, p. 7). The x-ray was negative. (Doc. 1, p. 7).
nose has now shifted to one side. (Doc. 1, p. 7). Nothing has
helped resolve his issues. (Doc. 1, p. 7).
alleges that Wexford Health Care has a policy or custom to
stay under a budget and that employees receive rewards if
they do. (Doc. 1, p. 7). He further alleges that Wexford
imposes cost 'considerations' that steer patients
towards cheaper medications and away from services that have
to be performed at an outside institution, like CT-scans and
MRIs. (Doc. 1, p. 7). He asserts ...