Bomkamp v. Wexford Health Source Incorporated

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION IAN BOMKAMP, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 25-1058 ) WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., et ) al. ) ) Defendants. ) MERIT REVIEW ORDER Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and presently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center, was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The case is now before the Court for a merit review of Plaintiff’s claims. The Court must “screen” Plaintiff’s complaint, and through such process to identify and dismiss any legally insufficient claim, or the entire action if warranted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 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.” Id. 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). Conclusory statements and labels are insufficient—the facts alleged must “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 alleges that he suffered from several medical conditions: back and neck pain, a swollen penis, infected foreskin, lung inflammation, difficulty urinating, carpal tunnel syndrome, and neuropathy in his legs and feet. He alleges that he underwent several diagnostic tests, was sent to the emergency room, and had several surgeries performed, but that Defendants otherwise took no further action.

Plaintiff may be able to state a claim, but his allegations are too broad for the Court to find that he states a claim for constitutionally deficient medical care as to any of the conditions he suffered. Plaintiff’s allegations suggest that he received some treatment for these conditions, but the Court cannot ascertain which treatment he received for each condition and when, if at all, he received it.

Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to renew as directed below to permit Plaintiff the opportunity to clarify his allegations and provide any additional information he desires the Court to consider.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Counsel (Doc. 5) Plaintiff has no constitutional or statutory right to counsel in this case. In considering the Plaintiff’s motion, the court asks: (1) has the indigent Plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or been effectively precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself? Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007).

Plaintiff satisfied the first prong. Plaintiff has personal knowledge of the facts, and he appears able to prepare a written complaint detailing his medical treatment. This case does not appear overly complex at this time, nor does it appear that it will require expert testimony. The Court finds that Plaintiff is capable of representing himself at this time. Plaintiff’s motion is denied with leave to renew.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1) Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of this order to file an amended complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in the dismissal of this case, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff's amended complaint will replace Plaintiff's original complaint in its entirety. The amended complaint must contain all allegations against all Defendants. Piecemeal amendments are not accepted.

2) Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a blank complaint form.

3) Plaintiff’s Motion [5] is DENIED with leave to renew.

Entered this 11 day of June, 2025.

s/Sara Darrow SARA DARROW CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE