United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN CHIEF JUDGE
Cristhian Salazar, an inmate currently housed at
Pinckneyville Correctional Center
(“Pinckneyville”), filed this pro se
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff brings
claims relating to allegedly inadequate medical care.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. In connection with his
claims, Plaintiff sues John Baldwin (IDOC Director),
Christine Brown (Healthcare Administrator), John Doe
(Doctor), and Wexford Medical Services
(“Wexford”) (Private Healthcare
This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of
the Complaint (Doc. 1) 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.
to the Complaint, sometime prior to July 26, 2017, Plaintiff
began to experience loss of vision and began to suffer from
extreme pain in his eyes. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff was
examined by John Doe, a doctor at Pinckneyville, on November
16, 2016. Id. Plaintiff claims that John Doe failed
“to properly treat him” and, as a result, he
started having severe headaches (lasting three to six hours),
extremely dry eyes, eye irritation, and sleeplessness.
Id. Subsequently, John Doe prescribed two different
types of eye drops. (Doc. 1, p. 6). However, Plaintiff rarely
receives the medication as prescribed. Id. At some
point, John Doe told Plaintiff, “Just wear the glasses
I'm ordering.” Plaintiff complied with this
directive, but his condition has only worsened. Id.
Plaintiff has submitted sick-call requests regarding his
worsening condition to John Doe and Christine Brown, the
Healthcare Administrator, but has not been scheduled for a
follow-up visit. Id. Additionally, in December 2016,
Plaintiff submitted a “complaint” to Baldwin, the
IDOC Director, and Brown. Id. Plaintiff was informed
that “the grievance” he sent to Baldwin
“never arrived.” Id.
claims that, despite submitting numerous sick-call requests
to John Doe and Brown, he has not been seen by John Doe for
approximately one year. Id. Plaintiff contends that
he has daily problems with his vision and daily severe pain.
Plaintiff claims that Baldwin and Wexford are subject to
liability because they make “the policy which prevents
adequate medical care.” Id.
Review Under § 1915(A)
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the prose action into
a single count. The parties and the Court will use this
designation in all future pleadings and orders, unless
otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. The