United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN CHIEF JUDGE
Victor Driver, an inmate currently housed at Pinckneyville
Correctional Center, filed this pro se action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff brings
allegations pertaining to an alleged excessive force incident
and deliberate indifference to his resultant injuries.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
Complaint (Doc. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which
(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.
January 8, 2018, Plaintiff was struck in his right eye with
the top from a water bottle. (Doc. 1, p. 4). Shortly after
contact, Defendant Estes, a correctional officer approached
Plaintiff and asked if “he really hit” Plaintiff
in the eye. Id. Plaintiff indicated that he had been
hit in the eye. Id. Plaintiff's eye was swollen
and very painful. Id. Additionally, when Plaintiff
wiped his eye with his shirt, he saw blood on his shirt.
Id. According to the Complaint, there have been
three other incidents of officers “popping”
inmates in the eyes with the tops of their water bottles.
(Doc. 1, p. 6). Additionally, Plaintiff claims that, on
“different days of the week, ” other inmates have
observed Plaintiff being hit in his eyes by Officer Estes and
other correctional officers. (Doc. 1, p. 7).
Estes sent Plaintiff to the Healthcare Unit for treatment
because (1) Plaintiff asked for medical treatment and (2)
Officer Estes saw that “what he had done to his eye was
very bad.” (Doc. 1, pp. 4-5). After arriving at the
Healthcare Unit, Plaintiff waited 15 minutes for treatment.
(Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff was treated by Farris, a nurse.
Id. Nurse Farris gave Plaintiff eye drops, pain
medication, and an ice pack. Id. Then Plaintiff was
returned to his housing unit, still in pain. Id.
Plaintiff saw Nurse Farris again on February 2, 2018. (Doc.
1, p. 6). She gave Plaintiff more pain medication and eye
drops. Id. Plaintiff alleges that this treatment was
not helpful, but he does not indicate that he told Farris
that the treatment was not helpful.
was also told (by someone) that he would see a specialist on
February 7, 2018. (Doc. 1, p. 6). However, to date, Plaintiff
has not seen a specialist. Id. Plaintiff also claims
that, to date, he has not been seen by a physician. (Doc. 1,
generally alleges that on a sick call request he described
pain in his eye and associated headache, but nothing was done
to help the pain issues. (Doc. 1, p. 6). This claim, however,
is not associated with any specific medical visit or
also references a follow-up medical examination that occurred
on January 10, 2018. (Doc. 1, p. 5). But, Plaintiff does not
describe who treated him on this day or what type of
treatment he received. On January 12, 2018, although
Plaintiff's eye was still painful, Plaintiff returned to
contends that his eye is still painful and causes headaches.
(Doc. 1, pp. 5-6). Plaintiff claims that when the bottle cap
hit him it lacerated his eye and almost “put his eye
out.” (Doc. 1, p. 7). He also claims that he suffered
broken blood vessels behind his right eye and that he has
lost eyesight in his right eye. Id. Additionally,
Plaintiff's eye is discolored and very sensitive to
outside air. (Doc. 1, p. 8).