United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE U.S. District Judge.
Delawrence Foggy, an inmate who is currently incarcerated at
Western Illinois Correctional Center, brings this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the
deprivation of his constitutional rights while an inmate at
Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”). Plaintiff
claims he was subjected to extreme heat while in his cell at
Menard and received inadequate care when he lost
consciousness as a result. (Doc. 1, pp. 7, 9). 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.
2009). Plaintiff's Complaint does not survive preliminary
review under this standard.
to the Complaint, Foggy was transferred to Menard on June 12,
2016. (Doc. 1, p. 7). Foggy allegedly spoke with a
corrections officer at the prison about an “extreme
heat problem.” Id. He requested a fan but was
denied. Id. He then requested to speak with a
sergeant about the situation but was denied that as well.
Id. Foggy eventually passed out from exposure to the
“extreme ‘hot.'” Id. Nurse
Smith came to his cell, took his “blood pulse”
and found it was “very, very, low.” Id.
Even so, Foggy was refused treatment by Wexford Healthcare
Service. (Doc. 1, p. 3). Foggy wrote a grievance to Warden
Kimberly Butler to complain about the conditions of his
confinement and/or the incident, but she did not respond.
(Doc. 1, p. 9).
now brings suit against the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”), Wexford Healthcare Service
(“Wexford”), Kimberly Butler (“Warden
Butler”) and Tonya Smith (“Nurse Smith”)
for depriving him of his constitutional rights. He requests
monetary damages against them. (Doc. 1, p. 8).
Court finds it convenient to divide the Complaint into the
following enumerated counts. The organization of these counts
should not be construed as an opinion regarding their merits.
The parties and the Court will use these designations in all
future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a
judicial officer of this Court.
Count 1:Defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to
Plaintiff's serious medical needs in violation of the
Eighth Amendment when they refused him treatment for heat
exposure and a “low blood pulse.”
Count 2:Defendants subjected Plaintiff to unconstitutional
conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth
Amendment when they failed to provide him with a fan or
remedy the “extreme ...