Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Bilik v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

March 16, 2017




         Plaintiff Richard Bilik, an inmate in Pickneyville Correctional Center, brings this action for the deprivation of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. Plaintiff requests injunctive relief and damages. 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 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 of the pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).

         Upon careful review of the Complaint and supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; portions of this action are subject to summary dismissal.

         The Complaint

          Plaintiff alleges that prior to his incarceration in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), he was seen by a dermatologist at Stroger Hospital at Cook County Jail. (Doc. 1 at 27). The dermatologist removed a cyst from the crown of his head, and then scheduled him for an ultrasound to determine why the cyst site was filing up with fluid. Id. However, since that time, Plaintiff has been denied his follow-up ultrasound and other treatment for his cyst. Id. Plaintiff suffers continual pain from the cyst. Id. He also alleges that he is balding as a result of the cyst. (Doc. 1 at 22).

         Plaintiff was incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center from June 2013 until February 2, 2016. (Doc. 1 at 21). Plaintiff has been incarcerated at Pickneyville Correctional Center since February 2, 2016. (Doc. 1 at 22). Although Plaintiff has alleged that the events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred at both Menard and Pickneyville, (Doc. 1 at 23), he has not named any defendants that work at Menard, and so the Court will only consider Plaintiff's claims arising out of Pickneyville.

         Plaintiff has alleged that Michael Scott, the medical director at Pickneyville refused to see Plaintiff for his complaints regarding the cyst or provide any medical attention for the cyst since February 2016. (Doc. 1 at 25). He has further alleged that Jane Doe nurses 1-5 refused to adequately document Plaintiff's complaints regarding the cyst. (Doc. 1 at 25). Christine Brown, Dave White, John Baldwin, and Jacqueline Lashbrook all allegedly knew about the cyst and the lack of treatment through oral complaints and grievances and failed to intervene to ensure Plaintiff received proper medical treatment. (Doc. 1 at 26). Plaintiff alleges that the IDOC's policies “permitted this claim to exist.” (Doc. 1 at 29). Plaintiff also alleges that all Defendants denied him treatment in retaliation for grievances that Plaintiff had filed. Id. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Wexford has a cost-saving policy that has limited Plaintiff's ability to secure treatment for his cyst. (Doc. 1 at 30).


         Based on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into 4 counts. The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a ...

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.