United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
E. SHADID UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cause is before the Court for merit review of the
Plaintiff's complaint. The Court is required by 28 U.S.C.
§1915A to “screen” the Plaintiff's
complaint, and through such process to identify and dismiss
any legally insufficient claim, or the entire action if
warranted. A claim is legally insufficient if it “(1)
is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.
Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, says his constitutional rights
were violated by seven Defendants including Nurse Garza,
Nurse Neal, Nurse Jill, Nurse Gargert, Warden Christine
Brannon, Healthcare Administrator Tina Jepson and East Moline
Correctional Center. The Court notes Plaintiff cannot sue a
correctional center pursuant to §1983. See Pope v
Racine Correctional Inst., 2012 WL 4470214 at 2 (Sept.
27, 2012) (correctional center is not a proper defendant).
Nonetheless, Plaintiff says the remaining Defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical condition.
Deliberately to ignore a request for medical assistance has
long been held to be a form of cruel and unusual punishment
... but this is provided that the illness or injury for which
assistance is sought is sufficiently serious or painful to
make the refusal of assistance uncivilized.... A prison's
medical staff that refuses to dispense bromides for the
sniffles or minor aches and pains or a tiny scratch or a mild
headache or minor fatigue-the sorts of ailments for which
many people who are not in prison do not seek medical
attention-does not by its refusal violate the Constitution.
Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1372
(7th Cir. 1997) quoting Cooper v. Casey,
97 F.3d 914, 916 (7th Cir. 1996).
says the Defendants refused to provide medical care for the
bottom of his feet which are cracked and peeling. Plaintiff
says the Defendants should have provided him with Vaseline or
lotion because he can not afford to buy it in the commissary.
he Trust Fund Ledger provided to the Court indicates the
Plaintiff did have some money available to him during the
relevant time period. 
important, based on Plaintiff's allegations, he has
alleged nothing more than a foot fungus, and “every
court to have considered the question has held that a foot
fungus (that is, athlete's foot) does not satisfy the
objective component of an Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claim.” Gray v. Ghosh, 2013 WL
5497250, at *1-3 (N.D.Ill. Oct. 3, 2013)(listing cases);
see also Tsakonas v. Cicchi, 308 Fed.Appx. 628, 632
(3rd Cir.2009) (holding that “eczema of the feet [and]
athlete's foot” are not objectively serious under
the Eighth Amendment); Roberts v. Dawalibi, 2017 WL
926772, at *5 (N.D.Ill. March 8, 2017)(“garden-variety
athlete's foot-even if it is accompanied by chronic
itching, dry and peeling skin, and discomfort-does not rise
to the level of a serious medical need.”); Smith v.
Schwartz, 2011 WL 2115831, *3 (S.D.Ill. May 26, 2011)
(“Smith's allegations that he suffered chronic
itching, athlete's foot, chafing, peeling skin, and a
painful, infected rash on his buttocks due to an inability to
shower and clean his cell while Pinckneyville was locked down
do not show a serious medical condition.”); Walker
v. Dart, 2010 WL 669448, *4 (N.D.Ill. Feb. 19,
2010)(“Although uncomfortable, a foot fungus, or
athlete's foot, is not a serious medical need or
injury.”); Cox v. Hartshorn, 503 F.Supp.2d
1078, 1085 (C.D.Ill.2007) (holding that “[a] fungal
foot rash” is not an objectively serious medical
condition); Rush v. Schrubbe, 2007 WL 2686843, at *2
(E.D.Wis. Sept. 11, 2007)(“athlete's foot itself
does not generally amount to an objectively serious medical
condition”); Sanders v. Allen Cnty. Jail, 2006
WL 2578977, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 6, 2006)
(“Athlete's foot, another fungal infection for
which there is a substantial risk at communal showers, is not
a serious harm.”); Rogers v. Allen Cnty. Jail,
2006 WL 1441092, *2 (N.D.Ind. May 25, 2006) (holding that
“athlete's foot” does not “constitute a
serious medical need”); Landfair v. Sheahan,
878 F.Supp. 1106, 1112 (N.D.Ill.1995) (While no doubt
uncomfortable, athlete's foot cannot be considered an
injury serious enough to satisfy the objective component of
[an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim].”);
see also Perez v. Hardy, 2015 WL 5081355, at *7
(N.D. Ill. Aug. 27, 2015) (collecting cases); Hutcherson
v. Moore, 2013 WL 5165740, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 13,
2013) (collecting cases). Therefore, the Court will dismiss
Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted and will access a strike pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
has filed approximately 19 cases in the Central and Northern
Districts of Illinois. Plaintiff now has at least two strikes
pursuant to §1915(g). Plaintiff is reminded if he
accumulates three strikes, he will not be eligible to proceed
in forma pauperis unless he can demonstrate he is in imminent
danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). In addition, Plaintiff may acknowledge each
strike he has received in any future litigation concerning
even if the Plaintiff had identified a serious medical
condition, Plaintiff states he was denied care on December
15, 2016 and January 9, 2017, but he chose to file his
complaint on January 30, 2017. Plaintiff could not have
exhausted his administrative remedies as required during this
time frame. See 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a). In
addition, Plaintiff admits he failed to complete the
grievance procedure in his complaint when he states “I
am now waiting for the response from the Administrative
Review Board.” (Comp, p. 5).
THEREFORE ORDERED that:
Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a
claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915A. This case is closed. All pending motions are
denied as moot. [6, counsel]
dismissal shall count as one of the Plaintiff's three
allotted strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g). The
clerk of the court is directed to record the Plaintiff's
strike in the three-strike log.
the Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he may file a
notice of appeal with this court within 30 days of the entry
of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). A motion for leave to
appeal in forma pauperis MUST set forth the issues the
Plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See Fed. R.
App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If the Plaintiff does choose to ...