United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE, U.S. 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:
(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.3d816, 821 (7th Cir.
2015, while playing basketball in the gymnasium, Plaintiff
was elbowed in the nose. (Doc. 1, p. 6). He was told to put
in for nurse sick call, which he did. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
Plaintiff saw Nurse Rice the following morning. (Doc. 1, p.
6). He reported severe headaches and Rice told him 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 that the prison would not fix
it. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff continued to experience severe
headaches, dizziness and memory loss. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
saw Defendant Williams, who ordered an x-ray. (Doc. 1, p. 7).
Williams told Plaintiff that 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). Plaintiffs nose
has shifted to one side and nothing has helped resolve his
other 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 alleges that Defendants Matticks,
Osmudson, Williams and Carpenter are aware of Wexford's
contract. (Doc. 1, p. 7).
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into two counts. The
parties and the Court will use this designation in all future
pleadings and orders, ...