United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN U.S. District Judge
Cory Paige, an inmate in Menard Correctional Center, brings
this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief and monetary 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.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
originally filed suit on July 28, 2016 in Case No.
16-cv-858-SMY-RJD. On December 6, 2016, the Court determined
that Plaintiff had brought claims unrelated to one another
and severed several counts into the present matter. (Doc. 1).
alleges that the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”), John Doe #1 (Director), and medical
director Shicker have known that Menard is understaffed and
not meeting its responsibility to provide medical care and
access since 2010, when the lawsuit Lippert v.
Wexford was filed. (Doc. 2, p. 24). Plaintiff further
alleges that Butler turned a blind eye to the deficient
medical conditions as the former Warden of Menard.
Id. Plaintiff also filed grievances, which were
reviewed by the IDOC, Shicker, Doe #1, and Butler regarding
Plaintiff's inadequate medical care. (Doc. 2, p. 25). The
deficient conditions that Plaintiff complained of are due in
part to a policy of Wexford Health Sources, Inc. that allows
inmates to be treated inadequately for cost cutting purposes.
(Doc. 2, pp. 25-26).
the blue, from 2012 until 2015 Plaintiff began experiencing
migraine-like headaches and vision loss. (Doc. 2, pp. 26,
28). He was given Tylenol and referred to a doctor.
Id. The doctor prescribed Plaintiff pain medication,
but disregarded the fact that Plaintiff did not have a
history of migraines, dizziness, diplopia, or blurry vision.
Id. Plaintiff had a follow-up visit 30 day later and
made it known that the pain medication he had been prescribed
was not working. (Doc. 2, pp. 26-27). Plaintiff also told
staff that he was still experiencing dizziness and blurred
vision. (Doc. 2, p. 27). Plaintiff alleges that an MRI or CT
scan should have been considered at that time. Id.
continued to put in sick call slips. Id. Eventually,
he was referred to John Doe #2 (eye doctor). (Doc. 2, p.
27-28). Despite seeing Doe #2, Plaintiff's vision
problems worsened. (Doc. 2, p. 28). He also continued to
experience severe headaches and blacked out on a few
occasions. Id. Doe #2, Wexford, and Trost persisted
in their course of treatment and would not discontinue
treatment that was not working or order further testing.
Id. Plaintiff was given nothing more than Excedrin
for Migraines for his headaches. (Doc. 2, p. 29).
years of complaining about headaches and vision loss, Trost
and Wexford finally approved an MRI. (Doc. 2, p. 28). The MRI
showed that Plaintiff had a tumor in his brain, specifically
on his pituitary gland. (Doc. 2, pp. 29-30).
alleges that the IDOC, John Doe #2 (Director), Shicker, and
Butler all knew that Plaintiff was not receiving adequate
medical care and turned a blind eye to Plaintiff's
complaints about inadequate medical treatment. Id.
Trost told Plaintiff during the course of his treatment for
his tumor that “we normally don't spend this much
money on an inmate.” (Doc. 2, p. 30).
April 12, 2016, Plaintiff went to see a specialist at an
outside hospital who recommended radiation treatment, which
may result in a loss of function on Plaintiff's pituitary
gland. (Doc. 2, p. 31). Plaintiff believes the need for
radiation may have been eliminated had the tumor been
discovered earlier. Id.
was continually frustrated when he tried to resolve these
issues through the ...