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.

Wyma v. Warden

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

May 17, 2018

CHRISTOPHER WYMA, #Y-20504, Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN, and JANE/JOHN DOE, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          HERNDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Christopher Wyma, an inmate in Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”), brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. In his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff claims the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical issues in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 13). This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the Second Amended 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.

         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 Second Amended Complaint

         In his Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 13), Plaintiff makes the following allegations: on or around April 19, 2017, Plaintiff arrived at Menard. (Doc. 13, p. 5). During intake, Plaintiff explained his problems, as well as the fact that he was not receiving psych medication. Id. “They did nothing about this which further delayed Plaintiff getting his psych meds.” Id. Plaintiff is “suing Jane/John Doe for a faulty intake, which does not help people to get back on their meds or schedule to see a doctor who you can explain your problems to, or get back on medication.” Id.

         Plaintiff wrote grievances at both Stateville and Menard, but he never received a response. Id. “This allowed the problem to continue to be delayed, which caused more pain, and stress.” Id. Plaintiff believes they purposely got rid of his grievances. Id. Plaintiff also believes the grievance procedure is faulty, in that there is no way to guarantee a grievance is received, and inmates do not receive a copy of their grievances unless they receive a response. Id. He is suing Jane/John Doe for this issue. Id.

         Plaintiff had his Dicyclomine and Famotidine at Menard, but they expired May 10, 2017, and “[e]ven after [he] saw sick call, they never forwarded [Plaintiff] to a doctor. . . . [It] took several months of seeing sick call and grievances just to see a doctor to get re-prescribed.” (Doc. 13, p. 6). In fact, Plaintiff was not prescribed his psych medication until June 18, 2017, after three months had passed. Id. “Because the nurse failed to do their ‘gatekeeper' role, ” Plaintiff is suing Jane/John Doe “for allowing [him] to be in severe pain after having personal knowledge of his medical needs” and for contributing to the “delay in [Plaintiff] seeing doctors.” (Doc. 13, pp. 6-7). From May 10 to August 14, 2017, Plaintiff “received virtually no mediation whatsoever. The psych counselor explained that no one had bothered to retrieve or fax Plaintiff's medical records.” (Doc. 13, p. 7).

         Plaintiff saw sick call several times and had to pay $5 every time because they would not let Plaintiff see a doctor who could re-prescribe Plaintiff's medications. Id. Plaintiff “is suing Jane/John Doe for running [an] inadequate sick call procedure which delays doctor visits or refuses you completely.” Id. Because it took so long to retrieve his psychotropic medications, Plaintiff experienced withdrawals, severe depression, and panic attacks. Id. When the Famotidine and Dicyclomine were not re-prescribed, Plaintiff experienced severe stomach pains and vomiting from acid reflux. Id.

         Plaintiff filed an emergency grievance because he was in severe pain and needed his medications. Id. His grievance was denied, however, and he was told to refile it because it was not an emergency. Id. Plaintiff believes that Menard's refusal to consider inmate pain and suffering an emergency indicates that the grievance procedure is inadequate. (Doc. 13, p. 8). “For an inadequate grievance procedure, [Plaintiff] is suing Jane/John Doe.” Id.

         This situation caused Plaintiff severe pain, stress, depression, and anxiety. Id. Plaintiff has included the Warden of Menard as a defendant in this action so he or she may help identify the unknown ...


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.