United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
A. BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff, proceeding pro se, and currently an
inmate within the Illinois Department of Corrections at the
Illinois River Correctional Center (“Illinois
River”), was granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. The case is now before the Court for a merit
review of the plaintiff's claims contained within his
complaint. The Court is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to
“screen” the plaintiff's complaint, and
through such process, to identify and dismiss any legally
insufficient claim or the entire action, if warranted. A
claim is legally insufficient if it “(1) is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
reviewing the complaint, the Court accepts the factual
allegations as true, liberally construing them in the
plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d
645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013). However, conclusory
statements and labels are insufficient. Enough facts must be
provided to “state a claim for relief that is plausible
on its face.” Alexander v. U.S., 721 F.3d 418,
422 (7th Cir. 2013)(citation omitted).
plaintiff claims that, when he was transferred from the
Danville Correctional Center to Illinois River, he possessed
a low bunk permit. When he arrived at his assigned cell at
Illinois River, however, another inmate was in the lower
bunk. The plaintiff inquired whether the other inmate also
possessed a low bunk permit, and the other inmate
acknowledged that he did not.
Officer Schrrod did not require the other inmate to move, and
Officer Schrrod did not move the plaintiff to a different
cell so that he could use the lower bunk. Instead, Officer
Schrrod told the plaintiff to use the top bunk and advised
the plaintiff that they would sort it out later. Although
Officer Schrrod told Lt. Scaggs about the situation, Lt.
Scaggs took no action to help the plaintiff.
that night, the plaintiff fell from the top bunk and injured
himself. The plaintiff was taken to the health care unit at
Illinois River where he received a sling but little other
treatment. Upon being returned to the general population, Lt.
Rilea forced the plaintiff to move to a different cell
despite the fact that his arm was in a sling.
plaintiff's Complaint states a claim for deliberate
indifference towards a serious medical condition against
Officer Schrrod, Lt. Scaggs, and Lt. Rilea. Assuming what the
plaintiff says is true, Officer Schrrod and Lt. Scaggs were
aware of the plaintiff's need for a low bunk, but they
ignored his need, and their actions or inactions led to the
plaintiff's injury. As for Lt. Rilea, he would have been
aware of the plaintiff's injuries from the fact that the
plaintiff was returning from the health care unit and from
seeing the plaintiff's arm in a sling. Nevertheless, Lt.
Rilea allegedly forced the plaintiff to move his belongings
to another cell, thereby exacerbating the plaintiff's
pain. Based upon these allegations, the plaintiff's
Complaint states a deliberate indifference claim against
Officer Schrrod, Lt. Scaggs, and Lt. Rilea.
plaintiff's Complaint does not, however, state a claim
against the other named Defendants. Simply denying a
grievance or failing to investigate a grievance does not
constitute a basis for liability under § 1983. Owens
v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir.
2011); Wilkins v. Illinois Dep't of Corrections,
2009 WL 1904414, * 9 (S.D. Ill. July 1, 2009); George v.
Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007).
Therefore, the plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a
claim against the Warden Justin Hammers.
making a rude comment does not violate one's
Constitutional rights and cannot support liability under
§ 1983. King v. Louisiana, 294 Fed.Appx. 77, 84
(5th Cir. 2008). Therefore, the plaintiff's
Complaint fails to state a claim against the health care unit
administrator Janet Mesker.
the plaintiff has not alleged that Wexford Health Sources,
Inc., maintains an unconstitutional policy or practice that
would subject it to liability under § 1983. Fakhoury
v. Brongiel, 2019 WL 2772546, * 2 (N.D. Ill. July 2,
2019)(citing Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social
Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978)). Therefore, the
plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim against
Pursuant to its merit review of the plaintiff's Complaint
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds that the
plaintiff's Complaint states an Eighth Amendment
deliberate indifference claim against Officer Schrrod, Lt.
Scaggs, and Lt. Rilea. Any additional claims shall not be
included in the case except at the Court's discretion and
on a motion by a party for good cause shown or pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
Clerk of the Court is directed to add Lt. Scaggs as a party
Defendant and to effect service of process on Officer
Schrrod, Lt. Scaggs, and Lt. Rilea pursuant to the
Court's standard procedures.
Clerk of the Court is further directed to dismiss all other
named Defendants for failure to state a claim against them
upon which relief can be granted. 28 ...