United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN Chief Judge United States District Court
matter is now before the Court for consideration of the First
Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Gregory Conway pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 2). This case was originally
severed from Conway v. Gooden, et al., No.
16-cv-1393-SMY (original case), on February 2, 2017. (Doc.
1). The only claim at issue in the severed case was
“Count 12” against Alan Trummel, an eye doctor at
Pinckneyville Correctional Center who allegedly denied
Plaintiff a pair of medically prescribed eyeglasses after he
transferred to Pinckneyville in 2015. (Doc. 2, pp. 8-9,
15-16). The claim did not survive screening and was dismissed
without prejudice on March 7, 2017. (Doc. 6). However, the
Court granted Plaintiff leave to re-plead his claim against
the defendant by April 4, 2017. Id.
filed a First Amended Complaint prior to this deadline. (Doc.
8). In it, he reasserts his Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference to medical needs claim against the same
defendant, Allen Brummel. In addition, Plaintiff adds a claim
against Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (“Wexford”),
Paul Lewis Shicker (Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”) medical director), and Christine Brown
(healthcare administrator) for instituting the policy,
custom, or practice that allegedly resulted in the
deprivation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights. (Doc.
8, pp. 6-7). In connection with these claims, Plaintiff seeks
monetary damages against the defendants.(Doc. 8, p. 9).
First Amended Complaint (Doc. 8) is now subject to
preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which
(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). The First Amended Complaint survives preliminary
review under this standard.
First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that his
“medically prescribed” eyeglasses were
confiscated from him while he was housed at Western Illinois
Correctional Center (“Western”) on April 13,
2015. (Doc. 8, p. 6). Following his transfer to Pinckneyville
Correctional Center (“Pinckneyville”) on May 21,
2015, Plaintiff submitted eight separate requests for a pair
of eyeglasses to the prison's eye doctor, Allen Brummel.
Id. These requests were dated May 28, June 4, June
11, June 18, June 25, July 2, July 22, and July 29.
Id. In each, Plaintiff explained that he was
suffering from severe migraine headaches and blurred vision.
did not meet with Doctor Brummel for the first time until
August 25, 2015. (Doc. 8, p. 6). He was not issued a pair of
eyeglasses until October 6, 2015. Id. This was more
than four months after Plaintiff first requested a pair of
blames the delay on a policy, custom, or practice espoused by
Wexford and implemented by Director Shicker and Administrator
Brown. (Doc. 8, p. 6). All three defendants allegedly
encouraged Doctor Brummel to control the costs of medical
care by providing as little care to inmates as possible.
Id. These defendants ignored Plaintiff's written
requests for glasses and overlooked Doctor Brummel's
denial of timely and adequate medical care, all in
furtherance of this policy. (Doc. 8, pp. 6-7). Plaintiff
maintains that this cost-saving policy was the “moving
force” behind the constitutional deprivations he
suffered. (Doc. 8, p. 6).
Review Pursuant to 28 ...