Source: http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180730_0000375.CIL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 17:24:20+00:00

Document:
UNKNOWN NURSE PRACTITIONER, et al., Defendants.
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff proceeds pro se from his incarceration in Western Illinois Correctional Center. His Complaint is before the Court for a merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This section requires the Court to identify cognizable claims stated by the Complaint or dismiss claims that are not cognizable. In reviewing the complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in Plaintiff's favor and taking Plaintiff's pro se status into account. 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 (7thCir. 2013)(quoted cite omitted).
Plaintiff alleges that he injured his right hand playing basketball on January 1, 2018. He believes he broke part of his hand/finger and that the break was and is obvious to a layperson. Plaintiff alleges that he has repeatedly tried to obtain medical care but that medical attention had been delayed and denied, in part, Plaintiff's believes, because Plaintiff has a reputation for filing grievances. Plaintiff seeks damages, an x-ray, and an outside consult.
These allegations state a plausible Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. A First Amendment retaliation claim might also be stated. At this point, both claims will proceed against the two unknown practitioners, Defendant Ashcraft (the health care unit administrator), Tara Goins (the grievance officer at Western), and Defendant Watson (the Warden at Western). Plaintiff will need to identify the nurse practitioners to enable service.
Defendant Baldwin (IDOC Director) and Defendant Thull (Administrative Review Board member) are dismissed without prejudice. They are too far removed from the incident to plausibly infer personal responsibility on the present allegations. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609-10 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Only persons who cause or participate in the violations are responsible.”); Soderbeck v. Burnett County, 752 F.2d 285, 293 (7th Cir. 1985)(“Failure to take corrective action cannot in and of itself violate section 1983. Otherwise the action of an inferior officer would automatically be attributed up the line to his highest superior . . . .”).
1) Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds that Plaintiff states an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to his hand injury and a First Amendment retaliation claim. At this point, both claims will proceed against the two unknown practitioners, Defendant Ashcraft (the health care unit administrator), Tara Goins (the grievance officer at Western), and Defendant Watson (the Warden at Western). This case proceeds solely on the claims identified in this paragraph. Any additional claims shall not be included in the case, except at the Court's discretion on motion by a party for good cause shown or pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
2) Defendants Baldwin and Thull are dismissed without prejudice.

References: § 1915
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1915