Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge William T. Hart than Assigned Judge
Plaintiff's amended complaint  is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is granted thirty days to submit a second 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 a second amended complaint consist with this order 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.
Plaintiff, Jonathon Williams, a pretrial detainee at Cook County Jail, has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 17, 2011, Plaintiff was allowed to proceed in forma pauperis, however, his complaint was dismissed because it failed to state a claim against a named Defendant. In addition, it appeared that Plaintiff had not fully exhausted his administrative remedies as to some of his claims. Plaintiff has submitted an amended complaint.
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. In addition, his medication was taken on January 20, 2011, during an unreasonable search and was not replaced until January 27, 2011.
Plaintiff names Dr. Sims, Sheriff Thomas Dart, Superintendent Miller, and Lieutenant Tucker 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 any Defendant in the alleged failure of him receiving his medications. As to Sheriff Dart, Plaintiff argues that Dart knew of issues within the jail related to detainees not receiving their medications based on a 2008 U.S. Justice Department report and, had he fixed the problem before Plaintiff arrived at the jail, he would have received his medications. However, Dart's knowledge that Plaintiff was not receiving his medications in 2010 and 2011, cannot be inferred from the 2008 report. Plaintiff attempts to demonstrate Superintendent Miller and Lieutenant Tucker's knowledge that Plaintiff was not receiving his medications based on their involvement with his grievance related to not receiving his medications in 2010. However, Plaintiff did not file his grievance regarding not receiving his medications through September 21, 2010, until November 29, 2010. Thus, the grievance filed months after the alleged issues related to the receipt of his medication cannot form the basis of their knowledge that Plaintiff was not receiving his medications prior to that ...