United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Reginald Young, an inmate who is currently incarcerated at
the Federal Correctional Institution located in Greenville,
Illinois (“FCI-Greenville”), brings this action
against the United States, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and
Department of Justice pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims
Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671-2680. (Doc. 1). In the
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he received inadequate
medical care for vision problems at FCI-Greenville. (Doc. 1,
pp. 1-7). As a result, he has suffered from progressive
vision loss. Id. He seeks monetary damages and
corrective eye surgery. (Doc. 1, pp. 1, 7).
case is before the Court for 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.
Complaint, Plaintiff describes himself as a 57-year-old
inmate, who has suffered from cataracts since 2005. (Doc. 1,
p. 2). He alleges that two different ophthalmologists have
evaluated him and made recommendations for treatment. (Doc.
1, p. 4). Both specialists recommended surgery to prevent
further vision loss. Id. To date, the
recommendations of these specialists have not been followed
with respect to his left eye. Id.
2008, Doctor Bart Brine diagnosed Plaintiff with cataracts in
both eyes. (Doc. 1, p. 3). Doctor Brine recommended surgery
on November 3, 2008. Id. Consistent with this
recommendation, Plaintiff underwent right eye cataract
surgery that included implantation of an intraocular lens on
May 11, 2009. (Doc. 1, p. 2). However, surgery was also
recommended for a nuclear sclerotic cataract and macular
puckering in Plaintiff's left eye. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-2). To
date, Plaintiff has not received left eye surgery. (Doc. 1,
October 17, 2011, Doctor Alan Montgomery also recommended
surgery for Plaintiff's left eye cataract. (Doc. 1, p.
3). On January 15, 2014, the same doctor diagnosed Plaintiff
with advanced retinopathy and opined that his vision was not
expected to improve without surgery. Id. In April
2014, the prison's health services unit
(“HSU”) attributed Plaintiff's vision
problems to high blood pressure. Id. Doctor
Montgomery disagreed with this assessment and noted that
Plaintiff's deteriorating vision was unrelated to his
blood pressure on June 1, 2016. Id.
the Federal Bureau of Prisons refused to address
Plaintiff's vision loss in its early stages,
Plaintiff's condition deteriorated. (Doc. 1, p. 4). He
now describes pain, inflammation, and progressive vision loss
attributable to bilateral cataracts and “medically
unmanageable open angle glaucoma.” Id. He also
complains of persistent eye pain, blurred vision, and
excruciating headaches, among other things. Id.
Plaintiff struggles to read, climb stairs, interact socially,
and focus his attention. Id.
support of his FTCA claim, Plaintiff asserts that he has
reviewed the facts of the case with a qualified health
professional, who will substantiate his claim. (Doc. 1, p.
5). He has also provided medical records and related
documentation in support of his claim. (Doc. 1, pp. 5, 9-19).
In addition, he has requested and is still ...