United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Christopher Wyma, an inmate in Menard Correctional Center
(“Menard”), brings this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his
constitutional rights. In his Complaint, Plaintiff claims the
defendants have been deliberately indifferent to his serious
medical issues in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc.
1). This case is now before the Court for a preliminary
review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
(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.
part of screening, the Court is also allowed to sever
unrelated claims against different defendants into separate
lawsuits. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607
(7th Cir. 2007). In George, the Seventh Circuit
emphasized that the practice of severance is important,
“not only to prevent the sort of morass” produced
by multi-claim, multi-defendant suits “but also to
ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees”
under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Id. This
practice is encouraged. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
has recently warned district courts not to allow inmates
“to flout the rules for joining claims and defendants,
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 18, 20, or to circumvent the
Prison Litigation Reform Act's fee requirements by
combining multiple lawsuits into a single complaint.”
Owens v. Godinez, 860 F.3d 434, 436 (7th Cir. 2017).
See also Wheeler v. Talbot, 695 F.
App'x 151 (7th Cir. 2017) (district court should have
severed unrelated and improperly joined claims or dismissed
one of them). Consistent with George,
Owens, and Wheeler, unrelated claims will
be severed into new cases, given new case numbers, and
assessed separate filing fees.
Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff makes the following allegations
spanning two different prisons. The Court will organize his
allegations by prison.
March 24, 2017, Plaintiff “was placed on an emergency
shipment to Stateville NRC (IDOC) after receiving a sentence
of 2 natural life sentences.” (Doc. 1, p. 4). Plaintiff
did not have paperwork, medical records, or his property when
he was sent to Stateville. Id. Because of this,
Stateville was unprepared to process him. Id.
“Even after learning [Plaintiff] had none of [his]
records, they failed to have them faxed. [Plaintiff] was not
seen by doctors, or screened for anything.”
Id. Plaintiff told staff that he took several
medications for medical and psychological problems, but one
guard told Plaintiff to stop trying to tell them, threatening
that if he did not stop he would “need meds for
was told he would do intake on another day. Id. On
March 27, 2017, Plaintiff was told he needed to complete
intake. Id. He “did everything except medical
and psych. This caused [Plaintiff] to be delayed even longer
in receiving [his] medication. [He] was also never given a TB
test.” (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff wrote multiple health
slips, talked to nurses, and told corrections officers that
he needed his medication. Id. He was completely
ignored or told that there was nothing they could do.
Id. He was eventually seen by medical on April 10,
2017, 16 days after he was processed. Id.
which is one of the medications Plaintiff takes for severe
depression, causes withdrawal symptoms if it is not taken
daily. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff “experienced
dizziness, loss of appetite, stomach aches/pain, weakness,
throwing up, and bowel incontinence.” Id. Even
after explaining that he was going through withdrawals,
Plaintiff was ignored. Id. When he saw the doctor on
April 10, he received a tuberculosis test and was prescribed
Dicyclomine, which he takes for severe stomach pains, and
Famotidine for his acid reflux. Id. After seeing the
doctor, Plaintiff “still did not see psych, or receive
any of [his] psychotropic medications.” Id.
doctor claimed they did not have Plaintiff's records, and
when they called Cook County Jail to get his records, they
claimed they had never heard of Plaintiff. (Doc. 1, p. 7).
The doctor told Plaintiff that he could not prescribe
Plaintiff medication for his psychological issues without his