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.

Saucedo-Cervantee v. Childers

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

May 16, 2018

RAUL SAUCEDO-CERVANTE, Plaintiff,
v.
KEVIN CHILDERS, ALLAN J. BRUMMEL, SUSAN WALKER, JOHN PETERSON, SHERRY BENTON, M. MILLER, and JANE DOE, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Raul Saucedo-Cervante, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections currently incarcerated at Centralia Correctional Center (“Centralia”), brings this action seeking damages for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for events that occurred at Centralia and Danville Correctional Center (“Danville”). 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 such relief.

         The Court's initial review of the Complaint suggests that there are parties and claims that are improperly joined in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. Thus, before screening the case on the merits, the Court must sever this action into separate cases.

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff developed problems in his left eye in March 2016 and began seeking treatment from Danville's medical staff on March 27, 2016. (Doc. 1, p. 3). Plaintiff continued to seek treatment during 2016, and in August, Nurse Jane Doe told him he was on the list to see Brummel, the optometrist assigned to Danville. (Doc. 1, pp. 2, 4). Plaintiff finally saw Brummel on September 29, 2016, but he alleges that Brummel's treatment did not resolve his symptoms. (Doc. 1, p. 5; Doc. 1-1, p. 12). Plaintiff filed a grievance, but Benton ultimately denied it. (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6).

         In March 2017, Plaintiff transferred to Centralia. (Doc. 1, p. 6). He continued to complain to medical staff about his left eye. (Doc. 1, pp. 6-7). On February 7, 2018, Plaintiff saw Childers, the optometrist at Centralia, but Plaintiff alleges that Childers was deliberately indifferent to the condition of his left eye and only prescribed more eye drops. (Doc. 1, p. 7). Plaintiff wrote a grievance, but Walker denied the grievance. Id. Benton then denied Plaintiff's appeal. (Doc. 1, pp. 7-8). Plaintiff continues to experience blurry vision, pain, headaches, and sensitivity to light. (Doc. 1, p. 8).

         Discussion

         Based 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.

Count 1 - Childers, Walker, and Benton were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's left eye condition in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
Count 2 - Brummel, Peterson, Benton, M. Miller, and Jane Doe were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's left eye condition in violation of ...

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.