United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Theopolis Williams, an inmate currently housed at
Pinckneyville Correctional Center
(“Pinckneyville”), filed this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that Defendants have
exhibited deliberate indifference to his medical condition
and associated symptoms (folliculitis and associated
pain/infections). In connection with these claims, Plaintiff
seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
Complaint (Doc. 1) pursuant to 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).
has a medical condition known as folliculitis, which causes
ingrown hair, acne pustules, bleeding, and, at times,
infections. (Doc. 1, pp. 7-9). Plaintiff entered
Pinckneyville in 2014. (Doc. 1, p. 7). When he arrived,
Plaintiff had an Andis facial trimmer in his possession. (Doc. 1,
p. 7). Plaintiff claims that this particular facial trimer -
the Andis trimmer - is medically necessary because it
minimizes the negative symptoms associated with his
folliculitis. (Doc. 1, pp. 7-9). According to the Complaint,
other facial trimers available at Pinckneyville do not meet
Plaintiff's medical needs and, without the Andis trimmer,
Plaintiff's condition worsens, causing infections and
daily pain. (Doc. 1, pp. 7-9, 20).
of his medical condition, Plaintiff has a medical permit
specifically allowing him to have a facial trimmer. (Doc. 1,
pp. 7). In the past, when the Andis trimmer malfunctioned,
Plaintiff was allowed to mail it back to the manufacturer for
repairs (as it is still under warranty). (Doc. 1, pp. 7-8).
2016, Plaintiff contacted “personal property” at
Pinckneyville and submitted a request to have his trimmers
sent out for repairs. (Doc. 1, p. 7). The request was denied
by the First Shift Officer. Id. The First Shift
Officer told Plaintiff he needed to obtain approval from
Warden Jaimet or Assistant Warden Love. Id.
Plaintiff submitted request slips to Jaimet and Love, but his
requests were ignored. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff
contacted Defendant Brown at Pinckneyville's HealthCare
Unit. Id. At this time, Plaintiff's condition
and lack of access to a facial trimmer were causing
flare-ups, pain, and infections. Id. Plaintiff did
not receive a response. Id.
in January of 2017, Plaintiff filed a grievance. (Doc. 1, pp.
8, 14-15). In his grievance, Plaintiff indicated that due to
his medical condition and broken facial trimmer, he had an
infection in his face and was suffering on a daily basis.
(Doc. 1, p. 14). He also claimed that the prison physician,
Dr. Scott, “will not and cannot” give him
antibiotics to keep fighting the infection off. (Doc. 1, p.
filed numerous grievances regarding his worsening symptoms
and requesting permission to send his trimmers out for
repair. (Doc. 1, pp. 7-9, 14-15, 20). Plaintiff explained his
condition and worsening symptoms, relayed that he had a
medical permit for a facial trimmer, and explained that the
shaving products issued by IDOC ...