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.

Willis v. Wexford

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

April 30, 2018

WAYNE WILLIS, #N-42118, Plaintiff,
v.
WEXFORD, RYAN SUTTERER, GAIL WALLS, and DR. SIDDIQUI, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          STACI M. YANDLE U.S. District Judge

         Plaintiff Wayne Willis, an inmate currently housed at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”), filed this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that Defendants have exhibited deliberate indifference to his serious medical condition (Type 2 diabetes and associated vision loss/pain). In connection with his claims, Plaintiff sues Wexford Health Sources, Inc., Ryan Sutterer (Menard Optometrist), Gail Walls (Menard Health Care Administrator) and Dr. Siddiqui (Menard Physician and Medical Director). Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.

         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

         Dr. Siddiqui

         On July 27, 2017, Plaintiff was examined by Dr. Siddiqui. (Doc. 1, p. 9). He told Dr. Siddiqui that (1) he was a Type 2 diabetic; (2) he was experiencing “major” vision blur; (3) he was having “extreme” headaches; and (4) he had not “had labs done” since April 2016. (Doc. 1, pp. 9-10). Initially, Dr. Siddiqui did not seem to believe that Plaintiff had not had his blood drawn in over a year. (Doc. 1, p. 10). However, he quickly confirmed this fact by reviewing Plaintiff's medical records. Id.

         Dr. Siddiqui told Plaintiff he was supposed to have a chronic clinic examination, including blood testing, every four months. Id. Plaintiff asked why he had not been receiving regular treatment. Id. Dr. Siddiqui told Plaintiff he was the only physician at Menard, that Menard was short 4 doctors (and had been for months), and that there was nothing Dr. Siddiqui could do about the situation. Id. He also told Plaintiff that due to the physician shortage, every medical department was behind in scheduling, and he had no idea when Plaintiff would be called for bloodwork or for chronic clinic. Id. At that time, Plaintiff asked Dr. Siddiqui to refer him to an optometrist. Id. Plaintiff emphasized that he was “rapidly losing vision” in his left eye and was having “extreme vision blur and headaches.” Id. Dr. Siddiqui said he had no control over whether Plaintiff could be referred to an optometrist and that there was simply nothing he could do. Id. He then “excused [Plaintiff] from his office.” (Doc. 1, p. 11).

         Dr. Sutterer

         Plaintiff submitted several request slips asking for an appointment with Dr. Sutterer. (Doc. 1, p. 13). In each request slip, Plaintiff explained that he was experiencing “severe [vision] loss” and needed to be ...


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.