Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Scott v. Lochead

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

February 2, 2017

DAVID SCOTT, # M-20737, Plaintiff,
v.
J. LOCHEAD and P. H. KEHOE, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Honorable Staci M. Yandle United States District Judge

         This 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).

         This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the Second Amended 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 such relief.

         An 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 standard.

         Second Amended Complaint

         In 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.

         As a 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. 11).

         Although 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).

         Merits Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

         To 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.