Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jonathan Williams (#2010-0211113 v. Dr. Sims

February 17, 2011

JONATHAN WILLIAMS (#2010-0211113)
v.
DR. SIMS, ET AL.



Name of Assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge William T. Hart

Sitting Judge if Other than Assigned Judge

CASE TITLE DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [3] is granted. The initial filing fee is waived. The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the Supervisor of Inmate Trust Fund Accounts, Cook County Dept. of Corrections Administrative Office, Division V, 2700 S. California, Chicago, IL 60608. However, summonses shall not issue at this time. The complaint on file is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is granted thirty days to submit an amended complaint (plus a judge's copy and service copies). The Clerk is directed to provide Plaintiff with an amended civil rights complaint form and instructions. Failure to file an amended complaint within thirty days of the date of this order will result in summary dismissal of this case in its entirety.

O [For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff, Jonathan Williams, a pretrial detainee at Cook County Jail, has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

According to the statement submitted with his in forma pauperis application, Plaintiff has neither available funds nor the means to pay the initial filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). As 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) requires that a prisoner not be prohibited from bringing suit because of inability to pay, the initial partial filing fee is waived. The trust fund officer at the correctional facility where Plaintiff is confined is authorized to collect monthly payments from Plaintiff's trust fund account in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding month's income credited to the account. Monthly payments collected from Plaintiff's trust fund account shall be forwarded to the Clerk of Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 until the full $350 filing fee is paid. All payments shall be sent to the Clerk, United States District Court, 219 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60604, attn: Cashier's Desk, 20th Floor, and shall clearly identify Plaintiff's name and the case number assigned to this action. The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the trust fund officer at the Cook County Jail.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to conduct a prompt review of the complaint and to dismiss the complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Plaintiff alleges that on February 11, 2010, upon intake at Cook County Jail, he informed Dr. Sims that he was HIV positive and required daily HIV medication. Plaintiff did not receive his medications until early June of 2010. In the middle of August 2010, Plaintiff was provided medication but it was not the medication that his doctor had prescribed. Plaintiff could not take the medication so he went without his medication for 7 days. Plaintiff did not receive his medication from August 30, 2010 through September 21, 2010.

Plaintiff also did not receive his medication from January 14, 2011 through January 19, 2011, even though Paramedic Moore had the medication in her possession .

Plaintiff names Dr. Sims, Sheriff Thomas Dart, Superintendent Miller, Superintendent Reyes, and Paramedic Moore as Defendants.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," in order to " 'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.' " Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,47, (1957)). Furthermore, "a court need not accept as true 'legal conclusions[, or t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.'" Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. Aug. 20, 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009). Plaintiffs cannot "merely parrot the statutory language of the claims that they are pleading . . . rather than providing some specific facts to ground those legal claims. . . ." Brooks, 578 F.3d at 581.

Liability under the Civil Rights Act requires a defendant's personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation. See Palmer v. Marion County, 327 F.3d 588, 594 (7th Cir. 2003). Section 1983 creates a cause of action based on personal liability and predicated upon fault; thus, "to be liable under § 1983, an individual defendant must have caused or participated in a constitutional deprivation." Pepper v. Village of Oak Park, 430 F.3d 809, 810 (7th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). Although direct participation is not required, there must be at least a showing that the individual acquiesced in some demonstrable manner in the alleged constitutional violation. See Palmer, 327 F.3d at 594. For a supervisor, the personnel responsibility requirement of Section 1983 for an official is satisfied if the conduct causing the constitutional violation occurs at the supervisors direction or with his knowledge and consent. See Hildebrandt v. Illinois Dep't of Natural Resources, 347 F.3d 1014, 1039 (7th Cir. 2003). The supervisor "must know about the conduct and facilitate it, approve it, condone it, or turn a blind eye. In short, some casual connection or affirmative link between the action complained about and the official sued is necessary for §1983 recovery." Hildebrandt, 347 F.3d at 1039 (quoting Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561 (7th Cir. 1995)).

Plaintiff does not make any allegations of personal involvement by Sheriff Dart, Superintendent Miller or Superintendent Reyes in the alleged failure of him not receiving his medications. As to Sheriff Dart, Plaintiff refers to a 2008 U.S. Justice Department report to infer his knowledge of Plaintiff not receiving his medications. However, Dart's knowledge that Plaintiff was not receiving his medications in 2010 and 2011, cannot be inferred from the 2008 report. Neither Dart's nor the Superintendent's knowledge of Plaintiff not receiving his medications can be inferred based on their position in the jail. Nor can Dr. Sims' knowledge of Plaintiff not receiving his medications be inferred from the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.