United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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
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.
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).
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).
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 ...