United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
JAMES E. WALKER, #R02343, Plaintiff,
NICK LAMB, KEVIN KINK, L. LIVINGSTON, A. BLAKE, JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, JANE DOE 1, JANE DOE 2, and JANE DOE 3, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
James E. Walker, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections currently incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional
Center ("Lawrence"), brings this action for alleged
deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff asserts a First Amendment
retaliation claim and an Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs claim. (Doc. 10). He
seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.
case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the
Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which
requires the Court to screen prisoner Complaints to filter
out nonmeritorious claims. 28 U.S.C. § l9l5A(a). Any
portion of the Complaint that is legally frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or requests
money damages from an immune defendant must be dismissed.
28U.S.C. § l9l5A(b).
make the following allegations in the Amended Complaint:
Plaintiff suffers from chronic medical conditions including
back pain, arthritis, sinusitis, and gastrointestinal issues.
(Doc. 10, p. 9). He regularly takes medication for his back,
sinus, and gastrointestinal conditions. At various times
during his confinement at Lawrence, one or more of the
defendants have prevented him from timely obtaining medical
care and necessary medication.
made repeated requests in late December 2016 for his back
pain and sinus medications, but he was ignored by the Health
Care Unit ("HCU") at Lawrence. He filed a grievance
regarding these issues, which was denied by Blake with Lamb
concurring. When he was finally seen at the HCU in December
2016, Jane Doe 1 informed him that his pain and sinus
medication had not arrived at Lawrence following his transfer
from Menard. She refused to treat him or to provide him any
alternative medications that proved effective.
was barred from the HCU for over three months by Jane Doe 2
in retaliation for historical grievances and to discourage
Plaintiff from seeking treatment at the HCU. Also, in August
2018, Jane Doe 2 told Plaintiff he would be referred to a
doctor but then refused to make the referral because
Plaintiff would not sign a money voucher for the referral.
(Doc. 10, pp. 9-10). Plaintiff filed a grievance regarding
Jane Doe 2's misconduct and her refusal to make the
referral was endorsed by Livingston, Lamb, or Kink. (Doc. 10,
attempted to return to the HCU each week in September 2018
for his back pain and allergy issues, but his visits were
cancelled by the HCU and officers John Doe 1 (one house A
wing) and John Doe 2 (three house A wing). Plaintiff was
denied access to the HCU each week in October 2018 in
retaliation for various grievances over the repeated refusals
to provide him access to health care. During the month of
October 2018, Plaintiff made requests relating to his back
pain and sinus issues and for medication refills which were
denied or ignored by Jane Doe 3. He filed a grievance on
these issues, which was denied by Blake with Lamb concurring.
on the allegations in the Amended Complaint, the Court finds
it convenient to divide this action into the following
Count 1:Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs claim against Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe
3, John Doe 1, and John Doe 2 for delaying and/or denying
Plaintiff medical care for his chronic medication conditions.
Count 2:Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs claim against Lamb, Kink, Livingston, and Blake
for denying Plaintiffs grievances regarding delays and denial
of medical care for his chronic health conditions.
Count 3:First Amendment claim against Jane Doe 2 and Jane Doe
3 for delaying and/or denying medical care for Plaintiffs
chronic medical conditions in retaliation for Plaintiff
parties and the Court will use these designations in all
future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a
judicial officer of the Court. The designations do not
constitute an opinion regarding their merit. Any
other intended claim that has not been recognized by
theCourt is considered dismissed ...