The opinion of the court was delivered by: CHARLES RONALD NORGLE, SR.
CHARLES R. NORGLE, SR., District Judge:
Before the court is defendant Abdul Basit's ("Basit")
motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). For reasons stated below, the motion is granted.
On February 19, 1993, after requesting the assistance of emergency medical care, Frank Bernard Cassara ("Cassara") was transported to Christ Community Hospital in Oaklawn, Illinois. Cassara complained of stomach problems, anxiety, and depression upon his arrival at the hospital. Cassara also became aggressive, uncooperative, and voiced suicidal tendencies. As a result, the hospital's medical staff restrained Cassara and transported him to the Tinley Park Mental Health Center in Tinley Park, Illinois ("Mental Health Center") on February 20, 1993.
Michael J. Cassara, as special administrator of Cassara's estate, filed a three-count complaint alleging a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, wrongful death, and a survival action, which is the subject of Basit's motion to dismiss. According to the complaint, the Mental Health Center's staff failed to contact, observe, or supervise Cassara while he was confined in the restraint/observation room and failed to respond to warnings and clear indications that Cassara would commit suicide. The complaint alleges that Basit, the Facility Director at the Mental Health Center, is responsible for the overall supervision and administration of the mental health center. Further, the complaint alleges that Basit failed to implement appropriate procedures and policies for constant and unobstructed observation of suicidal patients and for the removal of devices which could effectuate a suicide. These acts or omissions of Basit allegedly constitute negligence or gross negligence, or constitute deliberate, intentional, or reckless indifference to Cassara's well-being.
Initially, the court will clarify a question regarding the suit against Basit in his official capacity. The court's October 29, 1993 order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss discharged both the State of Illinois and Basit in his official capacity as party defendants. States and state officials sued in their official capacities are unamenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45, 109 S. Ct. 2304 (1989).
As for Basit in his individual capacity, the court concludes that count I must be dismissed as well. "Individual liability for damages under § 1983 is predicated upon personal responsibility." Schultz v. Baumgart, 738 F.2d 231, 238 (7th Cir. 1984). Thus, to recover damages, plaintiff must establish more than that Basit was merely a supervisor of others who committed a constitutional violation. Duncan v. Duckworth, 644 F.2d 653, 655 (7th Cir. 1981); see Rascon v. Hardiman, 803 F.2d 269 (7th Cir. 1986) (plaintiff must demonstrate supervisory official's direct responsibility for unconstitutional act in order to hold that official liable). To establish personal responsibility, the plaintiff must show some affirmative link between the misconduct complained of and the official who is sued. Smith v. Rowe, 761 F.2d 360, 369 (7th Cir. 1985). A supervisor's mere negligence or even gross negligence in failing to detect or prevent subordinates' misconduct does not create liability under § 1983. Jones v. City of Chicago, 856 F.2d 985 (7th Cir. 1988).
Personal knowledge and involvement of the superior are essential for establishing individual liability under § 1983. See Gibson v. City of Chicago, 910 F.2d 1510, 1523 (7th Cir. 1990) (personal liability imposed on superior for reckless disregard of deputy's known dangerous propensities); Jones, 856 F.2d at 992 (supervisors approved every step in scheme to "railroad" criminal defendant into a conviction and did all in their power to make it work). Knowledge alone is not enough. The superior's conduct must rise to the level of criminal recklessness. Santiago v. Lane, 894 F.2d 218 (7th Cir. 1990). In other words, the supervisor's conduct must evidence "such wantonness . . . as is tantamount to a knowing willingness that [the constitutional violation] occur." Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321, 89 L. Ed. 2d 251, 106 S. Ct. 1078 (1986) (citing Duckworth v. Franzen, 780 F.2d 645, 652 (7th Cir. 1985); Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 584, 82 L. Ed. 2d 438, 104 S. Ct. 3227 (1984)). This requires actual knowledge of easily preventable, impending harm, such that the court can infer a conscious, culpable refusal to prevent the harm from the superior's failure to act. Id. (citing Duckworth v. Franzen, 780 F.2d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 1985). Liability will thus attach to a supervisory official if a subordinate's conduct occurs at the supervisor's direction or with his or her knowledge and consent. Crowder v. Lash, 687 F.2d 996, 1005 (7th Cir. 1982).
An inference may be drawn under some circumstances at the pleadings stage that a supervisory official had some responsibility for claimed misconduct. See Duncan, 644 F.2d at 655. In Duncan the Seventh Circuit determined that it was proper to infer that a prison hospital administrator had some responsibility for claimed improper medical care, yet the same inference could not be made as to the warden of the prison. 780 F.2d 645 at 656. The Duncan court, however, was concerned with the pro se prisoner litigant and relied in part upon the more liberal pleading standards for pro se litigants when it justified the inference as to the hospital administrator. Id. at 655. Furthermore, the court's conclusion was justified because the alleged violations were of a nature such that it would be likely that officials at a relatively high administrative level may have acquiesced in the plaintiff's treatment, and the circumstances were not such that the pro se prisoner would have personal contact with or knowledge of the person directly responsible for the violations. Id. at 656.
In the present case, however, the allegations do not suggest Basit was personally involved in Cassara's treatment, and plaintiff does have access to the identities of those who were personally involved in Cassara's treatment during the time in question. The court finds that it is unreasonable to infer from plaintiff's allegations that ...