United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Daniel Heninger, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) current housed in Robinson
Correctional Center, 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 failed to accommodate his disability and 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, 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
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: Plaintiff has 90% hearing loss, and he is
“not being provided with the accommodations [he]
need[s] in order to have access to the same programs,
education, work assignments, and activities that are offered
to the other inmates.” (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff has
“followed all the procedures in order to receive a set
of ‘working' hearing aids or a sign language
translator but [has] been ignored and denied by the
contracted health-care provider Wexford.” Id.
Warden Rains and Assistant Warden Neece “have been made
fully aware of the need for [Plaintiff] to receive this
accommodation . . . and have acted with ‘deliberate
indifference' to the significant hardship the refusal to
accommodate [Plaintiff] has caused.” Id. Since
March 22, 2017, Plaintiff has had meetings with Wexford
employees, Rains, and Neece about this issue. Id.
Despite this, Plaintiff has been denied a set of working
hearing aids. Id. He claims to have suffered from
humiliation as a result. Id.
seeks monetary damages and an “emergency
injunction” ordering Robinson Correctional Center to
comply with Plaintiff's prescription for a working set of
hearing aids. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into
two counts. The parties and the Court will use these
designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless
otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. The
designation of these counts does not constitute an opinion
regarding their merit.
1 - Defendants showed deliberate indifference to
Plaintiff's serious medical need involving his hearing