Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Salazar v. Baldwin

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

March 21, 2018

CRISTHIAN SALAZAR, #Y-15772, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN BALDWIN, CHRISTINE BROWN, JOHN DOE, and WEXFORD MEDICAL SERVICES, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          MICHAEL J. REAGAN CHIEF JUDGE

         Plaintiff 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 Provider).[1]

This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the Complaint (Doc. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:
(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 such relief.

         An 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).

         The Complaint

         According 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.

         Plaintiff 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. Id.

         Finally, Plaintiff claims that Baldwin and Wexford are subject to liability because they make “the policy which prevents adequate medical care.” Id.

         Merits Review Under § 1915(A)

         Based 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.