The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert United States District Judge
Plaintiff, formerly currently incarcerated at East Moline Correctional Center and Shawnee Correctional Center, has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that Dr. John Doe at East Moline and Dr. David at Shawnee were deliberately indifferent to his gall bladder problems. Specifically, Plaintiff claims he suffered from indigestion, pain and vomiting, and each doctor failed to recognize his problem as a gall bladder and instead treated it with ineffective medication. With respect to Dr. David, Plaintiff alleges he continued ineffective treatment for sixteen months without any improvement in Plaintiff's condition. Plaintiff faults HCU Administrator Jane Doe at Shawnee and Grievance Officer John Doe at Shawnee for failing to investigate Dr. David's provision of ineffective treatment.
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 a colorable federal cause of action:
Count 1: A claim against Defendants Dr. David, HCU Administrator Jane Doe and
Grievance Office John Doe for deliberate indifference to medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment while Plaintiff was at Shawnee Correctional Center and
Count 2: A claim against Defendant Dr. John Doe for deliberate indifference to medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment while Plaintiff was at East Moline Correctional Center.
Plaintiff also makes passing reference to his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights but fails to articulate a claim for violation of those rights.
In George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007), the Seventh Circuit emphasized that unrelated claims against different defendants belong in separate lawsuits, "not only to prevent the sort of morass" produced by multi-claim, multi-defendant suits "but also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees" under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. George, 507 F.3d at 607, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), (g). Plaintiff's complaint contains two unrelated claims against different defendants: deliberate indifference to medical needs at Shawnee by Dr. David, HCU Administrator Jane Doe and Grievance Office John Doe (Count 1) and deliberate indifference to medical needs at East Moline by Dr. John Doe (Count 2).
Consistent with George and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, the Court SEVERS Count 2 of Plaintiff's complaint and DIRECTS the Clerk to open a new case with a newly-assigned case number for that case. The Court further directs the Clerk to add to the docket of the newly-opened case a copy of Plaintiff's complaint, the IFP application from this case and a copy of this order. Furthermore, because Count 2 arose in the Central District of Illinois, if Plaintiff elects to proceed, the new case shall be transferred to the District Court for the Central District of Illinois. Service shall not be ordered on Defendant Dr. John Doe at this time.
If for any reason, Plaintiff does not wish to proceed with the newly-opened case, he must notify the Court within 30 days. Unless Plaintiff notifies the Court that he does not wish to pursue the new action, he will be responsible for a separate filing fee in each case.
As for the instant case, Defendant HCU Administrator Jane Doe 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). Nothing Plaintiff alleges plausibly suggests Defendant HCU Administrator Jane Doe knew of and disregarded Plaintiff's medical needs. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
Defendant Grievance Office John Doe is dismissed from Count 1 with ...