United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge
matter is now before the Court for preliminary review of the
Second Amended Complaint prepared by Attorney Edward C.
Eytalis on behalf of Plaintiff Gregory Wallace. (Doc. 30).
Plaintiff is incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional
Center (“Pinckneyville”). He brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101
et seq., and Illinois negligence law. In his Second
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that officials at
Lawrence Correctional Center (“Lawrence”) refused
to recognize a medical permit he was issued for a low bunk
and low gallery in April 2017. (Doc. 30, pp. 1-6). As a
result, Plaintiff sustained injuries when he fell down the
prison's stairs. Id. He was denied medical care,
as well as access to other prison programs and services.
Id. Plaintiff names Lawrence's warden (Nicholas
Lamb) and several unknown correctional officers (C/O John Doe
##1-3) as defendants. Id. He seeks monetary damages
against them. (Doc. 30, pp. 3-4, 6).
Second Amended Complaint is subject to preliminary review
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. As
discussed in more detail below, the Second Amended Complaint
survives preliminary review.
to the allegations set forth in the Second Amended Complaint,
Plaintiff suffers from “serious weakness” in his
left leg as a result of an old gunshot wound. (Doc. 30, pp.
2-5). Screws have been surgically placed in his left knee and
hip, and a rod extends from his knee to his hip. Id.
In addition, three slugs remain lodged in Plaintiff's
left thigh. Id.
has difficulty ascending and descending stairs. (Doc. 30, p.
4). As a result, he requires housing on the prison's
lower level and assignment to a low bunk. Id. He
also requires the use of assistive devices, such as a
wheelchair, crutches, etc., to access programs and services
at the prison. Id.
his incarceration at Lawrence on January 31, 2017, Plaintiff
was issued a medical permit for a low gallery and low bunk
assignment. (Doc. 30, pp. 2-3, 7). A medical provider at
Lawrence issued the permit. (Doc. 30, p. 7). However, when
Plaintiff presented it to C/O Doe #1 during the second week
of April 2017, the correctional officer ignored it. (Doc. 30,
p. 2). C/O Doe #1 said, “I don't make the rules and
there are no open ADA cells on the low gallery.”
Id. The same week, Plaintiff presented the permit to
C/O Doe #2, and the second correctional officer also ignored
April 18, 2017, Plaintiff fell down a flight of stairs while
attempting to walk from his cell on an upper gallery. (Doc.
30, p. 2). He sustained a strain or sprain to his lower back,
bruises to his inner thigh, and generalized pain. (Doc. 30,
p. 3). Plaintiff was scheduled to see a doctor about his
injuries the following day. Id.
Plaintiff presented C/O Doe #3 with his permit and asked to
see the doctor the next day, the third correctional officer
would not allow him to do so. (Doc. 30, p. 3). Plaintiff was
instead transferred to another facility. Id. In the
process, C/O Doe #3 also denied Plaintiff's request for
use of a wheelchair, crutches, or ADA van. Id.
now brings claims against the defendants for exhibiting
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs under
the Eighth Amendment, violating his right to access prison
programs and services under ...