United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Honorable Staci M. Yandle United States District Judge
matter is now before the Court for consideration of the
Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 16) filed by Plaintiff David
Scott. Plaintiff, an inmate who is currently incarcerated at
Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”), brings
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two
prison eye doctors who refused to treat his glaucoma. (Doc.
16, pp. 1-33). As a result, Plaintiff has suffered from
vision loss and pain. Id. He claims that this denial
of medical care violates his rights under the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments. Id. In connection with these
claims, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages against the two
doctors, J. Lochead and P.H. Kehoe. (Doc. 16, p. 6).
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
Second Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
(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 are to be liberally
construed. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance
Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009). The Second
Amended Complaint survives preliminary review under this
2012, Plaintiff was diagnosed with glaucoma in his left eye.
(Doc. 16, p. 9). Doctors Lochead and Kehoe, who were both
employed as eye doctors at Menard, made the diagnosis.
Id. However, they would not treat his condition or
any associated pain. Id.
result, Plaintiff has suffered from vision impairment, eye
pain, headaches and depression on a daily basis ever since
his diagnosis. (Doc. 16, p. 8). He has regularly complained
about these symptoms to prison medical staff, including the
defendants, to no avail. (Doc. 16, pp. 9, 13-33). Doctors
Lochead and Kehoe have “largely ignored” the
complaints and grievances. (Doc. 16, p. 8). They characterize
Plaintiff's condition in his medical records as a
“slight glaucoma, ” but this does not accurately
reflect Plaintiff's pain and vision loss. (Doc. 16, p.
he attends monthly appointments to monitor his glaucoma,
Plaintiff claims that this is not enough. Id. No
meaningful action has been taken to treat his glaucoma or
associated pain. Id. His requests for eye drops and
surgery have been ignored. (Doc. 16, p. 12, 15-25). Plaintiff
has resorted to the use of daily cold compresses on his eyes,
but fears that the denial of care will result in further
vision loss and pain. (Doc. 16, p. 11).
Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
facilitate the orderly management of future proceedings in
this case, and in accordance with the objectives of Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 8(e) and 10(b), the Court has
organized the claims in Plaintiff's pro se