United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN Chief Judge
Gregory Conway, an inmate who is currently incarcerated at
Pinckneyville Correctional Center, brings the instant civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 2).
This case was severed from Conway v. Gooden, et al.,
No. 16-cv-1393-SMY (original case), pursuant to a Memorandum
and Order entered by the Court on February 2, 2017. (Doc. 1).
Now before the Court for preliminary review is a single
severed claim (“Count 12, ” original case)
against Alan Trummel, an eye doctor at Pinckneyville
Correctional Center who failed to provide Plaintiff with his
medically prescribed eyeglasses for a period of three months
after Plaintiff transferred to Pinckneyville in 2015. (Doc.
2, pp. 8-9, 15-16). In connection with this claim, Plaintiff
seeks declaratory judgment and monetary damages. (Doc. 2, pp.
12 is now subject to preliminary review under 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). Count 12 does not survive screening under this
brought his original case, Conway v. Gooden, et al.,
No. 16-cv-1393-SMY (S.D. Ill. 2016), pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 for numerous constitutional violations that
occurred during his incarceration at Western Correctional
Center (“Western”) and at Pinckneyville
Correctional Center (“Pinckneyville”). (Doc. 1,
p. 1; Doc. 2). In the Complaint, he asserted claims under the
First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments against officials at
both prisons. Id. Many of the claims were unrelated
to one another and brought against different groups of
defendants. Id. On February 2, 2017, the Court
entered an Order severing the unrelated claims against
different defendants into separate suits. (Doc. 1).
instant case focuses on a single severed claim that Plaintiff
brought under the Eighth Amendment against Alan Trummel, who
was Plaintiff's eye doctor at Pinckneyville. (Doc. 2).
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff's eyeglasses were
confiscated on April 13, 2015, just before he transferred
from Western to Pinckneyville. (Doc. 2, pp. 9, 15). Following
his transfer to Pinckneyville on May 21, 2015, Plaintiff
submitted 8 separate requests for eyeglasses to Doctor
Trummel. (Doc. 2, pp. 9, 15-16). Plaintiff explained that he
needed his medically prescribed eyeglasses on a daily basis
in order to see. (Doc. 2, p. 15). Even so, Doctor Trummel
ignored all of Plaintiff's requests, including those
dated May 28, June 4, June 11, June 18, June 25, July 2, July
22, and July 29. (Doc. 2, p. 16). In doing so, Doctor Trummel
allegedly exhibited deliberate indifference to
Plaintiff's serious medical need in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. Id.
case addresses one severed claim. The parties and the Court
will use this designation in all future pleadings and orders,
unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this
Count 12 - Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference to medical needs claim against Doctor Trummel
for failing to provide Plaintiff with his medically
prescribed eyeglasses after Plaintiff requested them 8