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. 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
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).
careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits,
the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority
under § 1915A; portions of this action are subject to
filed this suit on May 14, 2018. (Doc. 1). On May 16, 2018,
the Court determined that Plaintiff had attempted to join
unrelated claims in the same lawsuit and severed Count 2 into
a separate lawsuit. (Doc. 4). The facts relevant to
Plaintiff's remaining claim are as follows:
developed problems in his left eye in March 2016 and began
seeking treatment from Danville's medical staff that same
year. (Doc. 1, p. 3). 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 he 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).
severance order designated one claim for this action:
Count 1 -Childers, Walker, and Benton were
deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's left eye
condition in violation of ...