United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN U.S. Chief District Judge
Richard Tindall, an inmate in Pickneyville Correctional
Center, brings this action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based
on episodes of deliberate indifference. Plaintiff's
Complaint requests declaratory relief, fees and costs, and
punitive damages. (Doc. 1, p. 11). 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; this action is subject to summary
transferred into to Pickneyville on July 13, 2016 from
Western Illinois Correctional Center. (Doc. 1, p. 5).
Plaintiff suffers from an anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder,
manic depression, and paranoid schizophrenia. (Id.).
Plaintiff had been taking Buspar to control his anxiety.
(Id.). Upon transferring, Plaintiff wanted to see a
psychiatrist because he believed that his mood stabilizers
and anti-psychotic medication should be restarted.
(Id.). Plaintiff spoke with a psychologist, Ms.
Hayes, who told Plaintiff he would be put on the call list to
see a psychiatrist immediately. (Id.). At the time
he filed his Complaint, more than three months later,
Plaintiff still had not seen a psychiatrist. (Id.).
He has made 10-15 written requests to the mental health
department and made over 50 verbal requests to nurses and
health care staff to be placed on the call line to see a
psychiatrist. (Id.). None of the written requests
are in the record.
was also not given Buspar from the time of his arrival at the
prison until October 15, 2016. (Doc. 1, pp. 6, 8). As a
result of this delay, Plaintiff suffered from extreme
anxiety, and daily panic attacks. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
Plaintiff's paranoia and psychotic delusions, including
audio and visual hallucinations, have also been aggravated by
the lack of treatment. (Doc. 1, p. 7).
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into 1 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. Plaintiff's Complaint will be
dismissed at this time with leave to amend.
1 - Defendants were deliberately indifferent to
Plaintiff's serious medical need of mental illness ...