United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
TYLER D. CRIPE, Plaintiff,
UNKNOWN PARTY, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Phil Gilbert U.S. District Judge
Tyler Cripe, a detainee at Fayette County Jail, filed a civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
deprivations of his constitutional rights at the Jail.
See Cripe v. Glidden, No. 17-cv-00745-JPG-SCW (S.D.
Ill.) (“original action”). He brought several
unrelated claims against different groups of defendants in
his original action. (Doc. 2). Pursuant to George v.
Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007), this Court severed
the claims into two additional cases on October 19, 2017.
(Doc. 1) (“Severance Order”).
instant case addresses a single claim against an Unknown
Party for failing to provide Plaintiff with an initial health
assessment at the Jail or prescription medication for his
mental illness and asthma (“Count 2, ” original
action). (Doc. 1, p. 5). This case is now before the Court
for a preliminary review of Count 2 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 claims that he was denied adequate
medical care at the Jail. (Doc. 2). At booking, he informed
an Unknown Party that he suffered from asthma and a mental
illness. (Doc. 2, p. 5). Plaintiff was told that he would be
seen by a doctor within two weeks. Id. He
subsequently asked to see a physician “several
times” but never met with one. Id.
result, Plaintiff was denied an albuterol inhaler for
management of his asthma. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff has
trouble breathing in the morning. Id. He also cannot
exercise without his albuterol. Id.
addition, Plaintiff was taken off of prescription medication
for post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”).
(Doc. 2, p. 5). He was given a different medication that is
ineffective. Id. He was never even told what the new
medication is intended to treat. Id.
now seeks monetary damages and a correction of
“procedures” at the Jail “so no other