United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Anthony Horne, an inmate in Pinckneyville Correctional Center
(“Pinckneyville”), 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.
careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits,
the Court finds it appropriate to allow this case to proceed
past the threshold stage.
Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff makes the following
allegations: Wexford Health Care, Inc.
(“Wexford”) failed to ensure that there was an
optometrist at Pinckneyville from October 31, 2016 to
September 25, 2017. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Christine Brown neglected
to ensure Plaintiff's medical needs were taken care of
for nearly a year, knowing that there was no optometrist
available at Pinckneyville despite a long list of people
waiting to see the optometrist. (Doc. 1, pp. 6, 8). Dr.
Michael Scott referred Plaintiff to an optometrist on
November 14, 2016. Id. Plaintiff did not see anyone
until August 22, 2017. Id. On August 22, 2017,
Plaintiff was taken to an outside optometrist and diagnosed
with macular dystrophy. Id. Plaintiff also learned
that he would have to have laser surgery on his eyes.
Id. Plaintiff would not have “gone through any
of this if Christine Brown, and her staff, would have done
what Dr. Scott ordered. They all knew [Plaintiff] was
diabetic.” Id. “Christine Brown had her
own program going where [inmates] had to go through her
unlawful program to see [an] eye doctor.” Id.
Brown also knew that because Plaintiff was diabetic, he
needed to have his eyes dilated twice per year to see if his
diabetes had affected his vision. (Doc. 1, p. 7).
Plaintiff's eyes were not tested for nine months, despite
the need for a test every six months. Id. Christine
Brown also deceived Plaintiff by trying to sell reading
glasses that were advertised as two dollars for eight dollars
instead. (Doc. 1, p. 8).
Thull did not “do her job because her job is to make
recommendations not decisions. The director makes all final
decisions.” Id. Plaintiff received eyeglasses
on November 8, 2017, over one year later. Plaintiff
“had this eye problem since 2016.” Id.
Plaintiff returned to Marion Eye Center and was told that
they were not going to treat him for his eye problem.
Id. Plaintiff was told to wait to see if it got
worse. Id. Plaintiff was also prevented from
exhausting his administrative remedies on these issues,
particularly by Patty Thull, because she refused to forward
Plaintiff's grievance to Illinois Department of
Corrections Director John Baldwin. (Doc. 1, pp. 10-11).
has constant headaches without proper glasses, as well as
“macular dystrophy, nuclear cataract, bilateral.”
(Doc. 1, p. 12). “All defendants had knowledge of this
unwanted punishment before sending Plaintiff to [an] outside
optometrist.” Id. “Christine Brown and
staff held [Plaintiff's] prescription for 33 days until
the new eye doctor came to Pinckneyville.” (Doc. 1, p.
14). It is Christine Brown's “job as Health Care
Administrator to make sure that her staff sends all
prescriptions off to where ever they need to go. Not hold
them another month for any reason.” (Doc. 1, p. 16).
seeks declaratory and monetary ...