United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN Chief U.S. District Judge
Dreran Craig, an inmate in Menard Correctional Center, brings
this action for deprivations 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 any supporting exhibits,
the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority
under § 1915A; portions of this action are subject to
alleges that he has been incarcerated in unconstitutional
conditions of confinement. Specifically, he alleges that
Menard Correctional Center is old and run down. (Doc. 1, p.
6). Plaintiff has been housed in a cell that was designed to
house only 1 person, but due to overcrowding at Menard, 2
inmates are sharing the cell. (Doc. 1, p. 6, 17).
Only 1 inmate can be on the floor in these cells at a time,
meaning the other inmate must remain on their bunk.
Id. Plaintiff has been unable to exercise in his
cell. Id. As a result of the lack of exercise,
Plaintiff's back and knees hurt. (Doc. 1, pp. 6-7, 17).
Additionally, there is no ladder to the top bunk, and jumping
off the top bunk also puts strain on Plaintiff's back and
knees. (Doc. 1, p. 7). Plaintiff does not always get his hour
of daily mandated exercise outside the cell. Id. In
addition to the pain in his back and knees, Plaintiff
believes the cell condition also causes headaches and
depression. Id. Despite his back and knee pain,
Plaintiff has never been called to sick call to address these
issues. (Doc. 1, p. 17). Plaintiff alleges that he attempted
to raise the issue of his back and knee pain during a visit
to health care, but was told that the health care staff would
only address a single issue per visit. (Doc. 1, p. 18).
also lacks an adequate ventilation system, which causes
Plaintiff's cell to be cold in the winter and hot in the
summer. (Doc. 1, p. 8). There are cracks and holes in the
ceiling and walls that allow cold drafts in the cell block.
Id. One of the cracks is right by the shower area,
subjecting Plaintiff to cold temperatures when he's wet.
Id. Plaintiff also alleges that he is not given
adequate cleaning supplies for his cell. Id. He also
believes the inmates' shower is not being thoroughly
cleaned. (Doc. 1, p. 9). Plaintiff also objects to the fact
that laundry only happens once a week. Id. When
another inmate flushes his toilet, the waste pops up in
Plaintiff's toilet. (Doc. 1, p. 10). Sometimes the water
coming out of his sink smells like sewage. Id.
Plaintiff believes all of these conditions are unnecessarily
exposing him to germs and illnesses and believe he may have
gotten a rash from these conditions. (Doc. 1, pp. 8-10).
light in Plaintiff's cell is also very dim. (Doc. 1, p.
10). Plaintiff has begun experiencing blurred and diminished
vision, which he attributes to the bad lighting. (Doc. 1, p.
11). Plaintiff has submitted 7 request slips to see the eye
doctor, but has been told that there is only 1 eye doctor for
3, 700 inmates. Id. Plaintiff has been placed on a
waiting list; at the time of his complaint, he had been
waiting more than 6 months without being seen. Id.
alleges that Wexford Health Sources, Inc., has a policy of
understaffing prison medical positions in order to save
money, despite knowing that this causes inmates to suffer.
(Doc. 1, pp. 11-12). Plaintiff specifically alleges that
Trost and Walls are responsible for hiring the
“right” number of staff. (Doc. 1, pp. 12-13, 18).
Plaintiff also alleges that the medical staff's policy of
only addressing a single medical issue at a time has delayed
health care for his eye sight. (Doc. 1, p. 12). Plaintiff
also alleges that Wexford has a policy of refusing to send
inmates out to a specialist for treatment due to cost
concerns. (Doc. 1, p. 13). He specifically alleges that this
policy prevented him from receiving needed medical care for a
rash he developed. Id. As a result of this policy,
John Doe #1 and Baldwin are not fulfilling their duty to
inmates to provide them with the basic necessities of life.
(Doc. 1, p. 14). Doe and Baldwin are aware of Wexford's
unconstitutional policies and turn a blind eye. (Doc. 1, p.
15). They are also failing to supervise the staff in charge
of medical care. Id.
further alleges that Trost and Walls are responsible for
hearing inmate complaints regarding medical care, but
regularly fail to address such complaints. (Doc. 1, p. 13).
attached a number of grievances and kites to his Complaint.
Most of them address the rash on his leg. (Doc. 1, pp.
21-32). The last grievance attached to the Complaint