United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
CASE MANAGEMENT OPINION
MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
se Plaintiff, a state prisoner, originally filed a complaint
alleging Defendants at both the Danville Correctional Center
and Pontiac Correctional Center were deliberately indifferent
to his serious medical condition. See Fields v
Edwards, Case No. 16-2108. Specifically, Plaintiff
claimed he suffered with pustules to his scalp and body, but
he was denied medical care. After review of Plaintiff's
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court
determined Plaintiff was attempting to combine unrelated
claims against different Defendants in one lawsuit. See
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
Therefore, the Court severed Plaintiff's claims
concerning his care at Pontiac Correctional Center into this
lawsuit. See Fields v Edwards, Case No. 16-2108, May
17, 2016 Case Management Order.
was given additional time to clarify whether he wanted to
pursue a second lawsuit, and if so, to file an amended
complaint. Plaintiff has complied and has filed an amended
case is now before the Court for review of the claims in
Plaintiff's amended complaint pursuant to § 1915A.
The Court accepts the factual allegations as true, liberally
construing them in Plaintiff's favor. Turley v.
Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2103). However,
conclusory statements and labels are insufficient. Enough
facts must be provided to "'state a claim for relief
that is plausible on its face.'" Alexander v.
U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(quoted cite
Plaintiff has identified eight Defendants including Dr.
Caruso, Dr. Tilden, Nurse Megan, Nurse Amy, Officer S.
Prentice, Assistant Warden Shull, Wexford Health Sources, and
Pontiac Correctional Center.
says on November 13, 2015, he complained to Defendant Nurse
Amy about his “infection, ”but she told him there
was nothing she could do for him and refused to provide any
treatment. (Amd. Comp., p. 3). Plaintiff says he then sent
requests for medical care to Dr. Tilden, Dr. Caruso and Nurse
Megan, but no one would respond to him or provide any
also says he sent requests for medical treatment to Warden
Shull and Major Prentice, but he did not receive a response.
Finally, Plaintiff says Wexford Health Sources did not
provide him with the “the right medical
treatment.” (Amd. Comp., p. 8)
demonstrate a violation of his constitutional rights,
Plaintiff must show he suffered from a serious medical need
and the Defendant was deliberately indifferent to that need.
See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976);
Hayes v. Snyder, 546 F.3d 516, 522 (7th Cir. 2008).
The Court notes it is unclear whether he suffered from a
serious medical condition at Pontiac Correctional Center, but
the Court must liberally construe the alleged facts in
Plaintiff's favor. Therefore, Plaintiff has articulated
an Eighth Amendment violation against Medical Defendants Dr.
Caruso, Dr. Tilden, Nurse Megan, and Nurse Amy for the
purposes of notice pleading.
Plaintiff has not adequately alleged how the two correctional
officers are responsible for his medical claim. Plaintiff
says he sent each a written, medical request. However,
Plaintiff does not allege either Defendant is a member of the
medical staff, nor does he allege this is the procedure to
obtain medical care, nor does he allege either officer
received his request. The Court cannot infer Assistant Warden
Skull or Correctional Officer Prentice had any involvement in
Plaintiff's medical care based on the facts alleged.
addition, Wexford can only be held liable for deliberate
indifference to a serious medical condition if the
corporation had had a policy or practice that caused the
violation. Woodward v Corr. Medical Serv. of
Illinois, Inc., 368 F.3d 917, 927
(7th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff has failed to make such
an allegation and therefore has failed to state a claim
Pontiac Correctional Center is not a proper Defendant as it
is not a “person' subject to liability under
§1983. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police,
491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989); Tenn ...