United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN, U.S. CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
Ronald Pierce, a former inmate at Vandalia Correctional
Center now on parole, brings this action for deprivations of
his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff alleges that the defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his medical needs related to a rash he
developed while incarcerated, in violation of the Eighth
Amendment of the United States Constitution. (Doc. 1). 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
Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff claims that sometime after
September 8, 2015 when his incarceration in Cook County Jail
began, he developed a small rash on his stomach. (Doc. 1, p.
7). He requested to see healthcare and, when he did, he was
told his rash “was nothing” and was given
Hydrocortisone for it. Id. He was transferred from
Cook County Jail to Stateville Correctional Center on June
30, 2016. Then, on July 18, 2016, Plaintiff was transferred
from Stateville to Vandalia Correctional Center. Id.
When he arrived at Vandalia, he “started putting in
request [sic] to medical and nothing happened as
time continued to go by.” Id. After an
unspecified amount of time, Plaintiff put in for sick call
after the rash began to spread across his stomach, right arm,
and inner left thigh, and he was seen by a nurse the next
day. Id. The nurse gave him Hydrocortisone for his
rash, and he was charged a five-dollar co-pay for the visit.
claims that he spoke with Foster and wrote to both Foster and
Klien about his not being called to the healthcare unit, to
no avail. (Doc. 1, pp. 7-8). After not hearing from the
healthcare unit for a month, Plaintiff put in for sick call
once again in order to get more Hydrocortisone. (Doc. 1, p.
8). He was again charged a five-dollar co-pay for a visit
from a nurse. Id. Plaintiff claims the nurse told
him he would need to put in for sick call 3 total times
before seeing the doctor, which he believes constitutes
extortion. Id. Plaintiff does not indicate in his
Complaint whether the Hydrocortisone helped his rash, though
he does claim that he needed it. Id. Plaintiff
requests declaratory relief, a permanent injunction requiring
defendants establish a “better system of healthcare,
” and monetary damages. (Doc. 1, p. 9).
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to designate two counts in this action. 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 medical needs by ignoring Plaintiff's
complaints about his lack of medical care for his rash and/or
failing to secure ...