The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert United States District Judge
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center, has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to damages, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relieve against the individual defendants in their official capacities pursuant to Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 159-60 (1908). Plaintiff claims that Dr. Wahl initially failed to provide him sitz baths in the Health Care Unit ("HCU") for his hemorrhoids as ordered by one of Plaintiff's prior doctors and instead instructed him how to conduct them in his cell with warm water and a washcloth. When this did not relieve Plaintiff's pain, Dr. Wahl ordered the sitz baths in the HCU. Nurse Garil then took him off the sitz baths in the HCU because he could conduct them in his cell. Actually, Plaintiff could not conduct the sitz baths in his cell because he had no hot water. He complained to Defendants Brown, Paulsmeyer, Eplinel, K. Deen, George, Coiller, Arvai, Fenton, Hubler and Davis, but they did not rectify the situation. Defendant Brown responded that he could conduct sitz baths in his cell and to contact correctional staff if his hot water did not work.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to conduct a prompt threshold review of the complaint. Accepting Plaintiff's allegations as true, the Court finds that Plaintiff has articulated colorable federal causes of action:
Count 1: A claim against Defendant Garil, Wahl, Brown, Fenton (HCU Administrator),
George, Arvai, Hubler, Coiller, Paulsmeyer, Eplinel, Davis, D. Keen and Fenton (C/O) for deliberate indifference to medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment for failure to provide sitz baths in the HCU; and
Count 2: A claim against Defendant Eplinel for deliberate indifference to health and safety needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment for failure to provide hot water in Plaintiff's cell.
Plaintiff also makes passing reference to his Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights and his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights but fails to articulate a claim for violation of those rights.
Defendant Wahl is dismissed from Count 1 with prejudice for the following reason:
* Plaintiff makes no allegations plausibly suggesting a right to relief. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Dr. Wahl responded to Plaintiff's medical complaints and adjusted treatment recommendations after learning past recommendations were not satisfactory. These allegations do not plausibly suggest Dr. Wahl knew of and disregarded Plaintiff's medical needs. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Defendants Fenton (HCU Administrator), George, Arvai, Hubler, Coiller, Paulsmeyer,
Eplinel, Davis, D. Keen and Fenton (C/O) are dismissed from Count 1 without prejudice for the following reasons:
* A Defendant is generally not liable for the misdeeds of others simply because he knew about them. "A layperson's failure to tell the medical staff how to do its job cannot be called deliberate indifference." Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 596 (7th Cir. 2009). While these defendants knew about Plaintiff's complaints about his medical care, no allegation suggests they caused or contributed to any constitutional violation involving that care;
* A Defendant who "rul[es] against a prisoner on an administrative complaint does not cause or contribute to the violation." George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007). "Only persons who cause or participate in the violations are responsible." Id. There is no allegation against Paulsmeyer other than the denial of grievances.
Defendant Eplinel is dismissed from Count 2 without prejudice for the following reason:
* Plaintiff makes no allegations plausibly suggesting a right to relief. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Nothing Plaintiff alleges plausibly suggests Eplinel knew of and disregarded Plaintiff's health and safety needs posed by not having ...