United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE U.S. District Judge
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.
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.
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.
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).
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 ...