United States District Court, N.D. Illinois
John R. Moton #2013-0321241, Plaintiff,
Jmonczinski, Supervisor/Sergeant, #383940, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Honorable Charles R. Norgle, Judge
se Plaintiff John R. Moton, a detainee at the Cook
County Jail, brought a civil rights action against Sgt.
Jmonczinski and Lt. Johnson, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiff challenges the medical attention he received
after a fight with another detainee on or about August 4,
2014. Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
("Rule") 12(b)(6) . Plaintiff filed a response
reasons that follow, Defendants' motion to dismiss 
is granted in part and denied in part.
facts, as pleaded in the amended complaint, are set forth
about August 4, 2014, Plaintiff had an altercation with
another detainee (Mr. Centano) in his dorm in Division III
annex. [35 at 4] The altercation lasted "about 3
1/2 minutes overall." [Id. at 5] As
a result of the altercation, Plaintiff had blood on his
t-shirt and pants, as well as his "fore arm, right that
is, " his "left risk [sic]" and the upper part
of his neck and chest. [Id. at 6] Shortly after the
fight, but before he was able to change his clothes,
Plaintiff "got wind" that the detainee he fought
that day was HIV positive. [Id.]
Jmonczinski interviewed Plaintiff about the altercation,
Jmonczinski did not ask Plaintiff if he had any injuries or
wanted medical attention. [Id] While Plaintiff was
being interviewed, inmate Centano walked by. Plaintiff
observed that inmate Centano was bleeding from his right eye.
[Id. at 6] Plaintiff repeatedly requested to receive
medical attention and change his clothes after the fight, but
Jmonczinski denied Plaintiffs request, even though he knew
inmate Centano was HIV positive. [Id. at 7] In doing
so, Jmonczinski "didn't follow proper
procedures." [Id] Lt. Johnson also did not
"take the requirement and necessary step to see that
[Plaintiff] was treated by medical staff." [Id.
at 8] According to the amended complaint, the Defendant
officers were "unprofessional" in their
"handling of the situation." [Id. at 10]
result of not getting medical attention from the Defendant
officers, or any other employee at the jail, Plaintiff had
"very uncomfortable feeling throughout the night"
of August 4, 2014, and was not able to sleep well
"because of the unwanted thoughts . . . running through
[his] head constantly." [Id. at 9] Anxiety also
"kick in alone [sic] with stressing." [Id]
Plaintiff alleges that, following the incident, Plaintiff
submitted a medical request for testing. [Id.] About
two and half months later, he received testing.
motion under Rule 12(b)(6) "challenges the sufficiency
of the complaint to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted." Hallinan v. Fraternal Order of Police of
Chi. Lodge No. 7, 570 F.3d 811, 820 (7th Cir. 2009).
When reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court
construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, accepts all well-pleaded factual allegations as
true, and draws all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs
favor. Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081
(7th Cir. 2008). Pursuant to Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must
contain "a 'short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, '
sufficient to provide the defendant with 'fair
notice' of the claim and its basis." Id.
(quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); Bell All. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d
929 (2007)). Detailed factual allegations are not required,
but the complaint "must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed. 2D
868 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
Plausibility in this context does not imply that a court
"should decide whose version to believe, or which
version is more likely than not." Swanson v.
Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 404 (7th Cir. 2010).
Rather, to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6),
"the plaintiff must give enough details about the
subject-matter of the case to present a story that holds
together. In other words, the court will ask itself could
these things have happened, not did they happen."
Plaintiffs Allegations are Sufficient to State a Claim for
Deliberate Indifference to Plaintiffs
Serious Medical Needs against Defendant Jmonczinski
alleges that Defendants failed to provide him with adequate
medical care after the August 4, 2014 altercation with inmate
Centano. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that the he was not
allowed to immediately change his clothes, shower or be
tested for HIV. [35 at 6-10]
officials violate an inmate's constitutional rights
"when they display 'deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs'" of the inmate. See
Greeno v. Daley,414 F.3d 645, 652-53 (7th Cir. 2005)
(quoting Estelle v. Gamble,429 U.S. 97, 104, 97
S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976)); Cty. of Sacramento v.
Lewis,523 U.S. 833, 849-50, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 140 L.Ed.2d
1043 (1998) (explaining that deliberate indifference claims
brought by pretrial detainees against jail personnel arise
under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Eighth
Amendment but are analyzed under the same standard). To state
a claim, a prisoner must show that: (1) his medical need was
objectively serious, and (2) state officials acted with
deliberate indifference to the prisoner's health or
safety, which is a subjective standard. Farmer v.
Brennan,511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d
811 (1994). "[A]negations that a prison official
knowingly exposed an inmate to an infectious disease that
might cause him future harm states a claim of ...