United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Phil Gilbert U.S. District Judge
Gregory Scott, an inmate in Shawnee Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests
compensatory and punitive 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.
arrived at Shawnee Correctional Center on July 18, 2013.
(Doc. 1, p. 7). As part of intake, Plaintiff was sent to the
health care unit for screening. Id. Five days later
on July 23, 2013, Plaintiff had a doctor visit with Dr.
David. Id. David diagnosed Plaintiff with high
cholesterol and prescribed medication. Id. After
being on the medication for several days, Plaintiff began
feeling unwell and so signed up for sick call again.
Id. That time, Plaintiff saw Blake, a nurse
practitioner, instead. Id. In response to
Plaintiff's complaints, Blake increased the dosage of
Plaintiff's cholesterol medication. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that he continued to feel discomfort and
every time he reported such symptoms to the health care unit,
his dosage was increased. Id.
December 5, 2015, Plaintiff awoke in pain; he could not see
out of his left eye or move his left arm. Id. He was
admitted to the health care unit for observation and given
pain medication. (Doc. 1, p. 8). Plaintiff saw the eye
doctor, who referred him to an outside specialist.
Id. On January 6, 2016, Plaintiff was taken to the
Marion Eye Center. Plaintiff was told that the artery behind
his left eye was completely blocked, which caused his
blindness. Id. Plaintiff is unlikely to regain the
vision in his left eye. Id. Furthermore, damage was
found in his right eye as well. Id.
Plaintiff returned to Shawnee, David ran a diagnostic test
which revealed that Plaintiff was allergic to his cholesterol
medication. Id. In addition to his vision problems,
Plaintiff has experienced damage to his right arm, including
his fingers, arm, and shoulder, and all the way up into his
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into 2 counts. The
parties and the Court will use these designations in all
future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a
judicial officer of this Court. The following claim survives
Count 1 - David and Blake were deliberately
indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical need in
violation of the Eight Amendment when they persisted in
prescribing the same cholesterol medication despite
Plaintiff's repeated claims of ...