United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL United States District Judge
Steven Podkulski, a former inmate of Menard Correctional
Center, brings this action seeking damages for deprivations
of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Because Plaintiff has been released from custody, the
Court will conduct a preliminary review of the Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which provides:
Not withstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that
may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any
time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal
i. is frivolous or malicious;
ii. fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
iii. seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
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).
careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits,
the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority
under § 1915A; portions of this action are subject to
originally filed suit on November 27, 2017. (Doc. 1). On
February 7, 2018, the Court determined that two of
Plaintiff's claims were not properly joined to the action
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20 and
severed those claims into separate actions. (see
Doc. 7). Three of Plaintiff's claims proceed in this
alleges that he arrived at Menard on May 6, 2017. (Doc. 1, p.
3). He experiences difficulty walking due to a neurological
issue and uses a wheelchair. Id. Despite this,
Trost, Butler, Williams, and Lyrcia allowed his wheelchair to
be taken away from him. Id.
also suffers from seizures. Prior to his time at Menard,
Plaintiff had been prescribed the seizure medication
“Onfi, ” but Trost would not approve the
medication because he was allegedly deliberately indifferent
to Plaintiff's seizures. Id.
alleges that as a result of his condition, he suffers from
both urinary and fecal incontinence, yet Trost, Butler,
Williams, and Lyrcia made no provision for him to have
hygiene supplies or use anything but his personal sink for
cleaning purposes. Id. Plaintiff alleges that for at
least a one week period, he had nothing to clean himself with
but water and his hands, and that during the same time
period, he had to use his hands to eat his meals.
Id. Plaintiff alleges that he was denied medical
treatment because Menard has a policy of cutting medical care
to save on costs. (Doc. 1, p. 5).
26, 2016, Plaintiff was in the receiving area when he had a
seizure, which left him covered in feces and urine. (Doc. 1,
p. 4) Jane Doe Nurse and John Doe #2 left him lying in his
waste for a few days, despite the fact that Plaintiff told
them he could not move. Id. Plaintiff's food was
thrown into ...