United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
R.HERNDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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
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 supporting exhibits, the
Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under
§ 1915A; portions of this action are subject to summary
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).
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
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).
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