United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN U.S. CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
Timothy McCullough, an inmate in Shawnee Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests
damages and injunctive relief for deliberate indifference.
This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of
the Complaint 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 such relief.
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.
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
alleges that he takes psychotropic medication that causes
blood from his kidneys to enter his urine. (Doc. 1-1, p. 4).
Plaintiff informed Defendants of these side effects, but they
increased the dosage and gave him a second harmful
psychotropic medication. (Doc. 1-1, pp. 4-5). Plaintiff has
continually requested medical and mental health treatment,
but such treatment has been delayed and denied. (Doc. 1-1, p.
4). Plaintiff was never informed about the side effects of
his medication. (Doc. 1-1, p. 5). Plaintiff also alleges that
his psychotropic medication is causing blindness, and that he
is almost 100% blind in his right eye. Id.
Correctional Center only employs a single eye doctor, even
though 1, 200 inmates are housed there. (Doc. 1-1, p. 4).
Smoot was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious
medical need by failing “to have Plaintiff receive
needed medical treatment.” (Doc. 1-1, p. 5). Plaintiff
has put Smoot on notice of his condition by grievances, and
through direct contact. Id. Smoot failed to have
Plaintiff seen by the eye doctor. Id.
experiences headaches to due to his eye condition. (Doc. 1-1,
p. 6). His eyewear is outdated and in need of replacement,
which causes eye strain and pain. Id. Plaintiff has
not received pain medication. Id. Wilkie has delayed
Plaintiff's care by failing to call him for treatment
after putting in a sick call request. Id. Wilkie
also generally refused to provide adequate medical care.
further alleges that Wexford has injured him by failing to
have an adequate number of optometrists work at Shawnee.
(Doc. 1-1, p. 7).
filed grievances to Benton, but she failed to take action and
ensure that he was ...