United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
William Buck, an inmate in Menard Correctional Center
(“Menard”), brings this action for deprivations
of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiff contends officials at Menard subjected him to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement while he was on
suicide watch. Plaintiff also alleges that he was the victim
of excessive force on two occasions during his suicide watch
and was denied appropriate medical care with respect to
injuries stemming from the excessive force incidents. In
connection with these claims, Plaintiff sues Sgt. Young
(Correctional Officer), C/O Slavens (Correctional Officer),
Lieutenant Callais (Correctional Officer), Withoff
(Correctional Officer), Nurse Pam (Nurse), Nurse Tripp
(Nurse), Nurse Jill (Nurse), Larissa Wandro (Grievance
Officer), Sylvia Butler (Physician), Ms. Pappas (Mental
Health Professional), Ms. Meyers (Mental Health
Professional), Mr. Weatherford (Mental Health Professional),
Gail Walls (Healthcare Administrator). According to the
Complaint, Plaintiff sues all defendants in their individual
and official capacities. Plaintiff seeks monetary damage and
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:
(a) Screening - The court shall review, before docketing, if
feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after
docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner
seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for Dismissal - On review, the court shall
identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any
portion of the complaint, if the complaint-
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
action or claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable
basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Frivolousness is an
objective standard that refers to a claim that any reasonable
person would find meritless. Lee v. Clinton, 209
F.3d 1025, 1026-27 (7th Cir. 2000). An action fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The claim of
entitlement to relief must cross “the line between
possibility and plausibility.” Id. at 557. At
this juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se
complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v.
Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir.
careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits,
the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority
under § 1915A; portions of this action are subject to
was on suicide watch between October 27, 2016 and December 7,
2016. (Doc. 1, pp. 9-11). During his suicide watch, Plaintiff
was initially housed in a cell in the Healthcare Unit. (Doc.
1, p. 9). The first transfer occurred on November 12, 2016,
when Plaintiff was transferred to cell number 507 in North 2.
(Doc. 1, p. 10). Plaintiff was subsequently transferred
twice. (Doc. 1, pp. 9-11). The second and final transfer
occurred on November 23, 2016, when Plaintiff was transferred
to cell number 217 in North 2. (Doc. 1, p. 11). During his
confinement in these cells, Plaintiff was subject to the
following conditions: (1) he had only a suicide vest and
blanket in his cell and was not permitted to clean or replace
them, even after they were soiled; (2) he was not permitted
to shower; (3) he was not allowed to have a toothbrush or
toothpaste and his mouth became infected; (4) he was not
allowed any items to clean himself; (5) in each cell the
walls and flooring were covered in urine, feces, and/or
blood; (6) in each cell, the mattress provided was covered in
urine, feces, and/or blood; (7) the cells were not cleaned
and Plaintiff was not allowed any cleaning supplies; (8)
Plaintiff could not clean himself after urinating or
defecating and ate finger food with soiled fingers; (9) the
lights in Plaintiff's cell were turned on at all times,
depriving Plaintiff of sleep; (10) Plaintiff was bitten by
bugs; and (11) Plaintiff developed MRSA. (Doc.1, pp. 9-11).
Complaint indicates that Pappas (Doc. 1, p. 10, ¶ 8-9),
Meyers (Doc. 1, p. 11 ¶ 16-17) and Weatherford (Doc. 1,
p. 11, ¶ 22) intentionally had Plaintiff placed in
unsanitary conditions. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that
Weatherford (Doc. 1, p. 11, ¶ 18) Pappas (Doc. 1, p. 11,
¶ 18), Meyers (Doc. 1, p. 11, ¶ 18), and Withoff
(Doc. 1, p. 14) were aware of these unsanitary conditions,
and failed to take any action to assist Plaintiff.
also alleges that while he was in solitary confinement, he
was subjected to excessive force on two occasions. The first
excessive force incident occurred on November 20, 2016, when
Plaintiff was in cell number 507 in North 2. (Doc. 1, p. 12).
According to Plaintiff, he asked to speak with a lieutenant.
(Doc. 1, p. 12). Slavens and Callais responded to his
request. (Doc. 1, p. 12). At the time, Plaintiff's arm
was in the opened chuckhole. (Doc. 1, p. 12). Slavens told
Plaintiff he was going to break his arm while it was in the
chuckhole. (Doc. 1, p. 12). Callais then ordered Slavens to
go ahead and break Plaintiff's arm. (Doc. 1, p. 12).
Slavens grabbed Plaintiff's right thumb and began to
twist and shove Plaintiff's arm with all of his body
weight. (Doc. 1, p. 12). Slavens then shoved Plaintiff into
rusty metal in Plaintiff's cell. (Doc. 1, p. 12).
Plaintiff's knee was punctured and there was a gash in
his left foot. (Doc. 1, p. 12). Plaintiff experienced severe
pain in his foot, knee, shoulder, wrist, and thumb. (Doc. 1,
and Callais refused Plaintiff's initial requests for
medical assistance. (Doc. 1, p. 12). Although Callais
subsequently returned with a nurse, Pam, she did not provide
appropriate medical care. (Doc. 1, p. 13). Pam told Plaintiff
he deserved worse and did nothing more than throw two
bandages into Plaintiff's cell. (Doc. 1, p. 13). The
following morning, another nurse, Jill and Young ignored
Plaintiff's requests for medical treatment. (Doc. 1, p.
second excessive force incident took place on the afternoon
of November 21, 2016. According to Plaintiff, Young (who was
aware of Plaintiff's prior injuries) approached
Plaintiff's cell. (Doc. 1, p. 13). Then, without cause,
Young pepper sprayed Plaintiff and twisted Plaintiff's
already injured arm, causing severe pain. (Doc. 1, p. 13). At
some point during the assault, Withoff appeared and cuffed
Plaintiff through the chuckhole. (Doc. 1, p. 13). Plaintiff
was then escorted, with his arms cuffed behind his back and
without any clothing through the gallery to the HCU. (Doc. 1,
p. 13). Plaintiff was taken to be examined by another nurse,
Anna. (Doc. 1, p. 13). Anna performed a cursory exam and then
left without providing treatment. (Doc. 1, p. 14). Plaintiff
contends his shoulders, wrists, and thumbs felt broken, he
was bleeding, and in extreme pain. (Doc. 1, p.14). Plaintiff
was then returned to his cell without receiving any
treatment. (Doc. 1, p. 14).
November 22, 2016, Plaintiff was seen by another nurse,
Tripp. (Doc. 1, p. 14). Plaintiff was told he was lucky to
see her at all. (Doc. 1, p. 14). Tripp examined Plaintiff but
did not provide any medical care. (Doc. 1, p. 14). Plaintiff
told Meyers about the assault but, other than contacting a
psychiatrist, she did not provide him with any assistance.
(Doc. 1, p. 14).
November 23, 2016, Plaintiff was examined by Moldenhauser
(not a named Defendant) in the presence of several
corrections officers. (Doc. 1, p. 14). Moldenhauser ordered
x-rays for Plaintiff. But informed Plaintiff he did not want
trouble with the guards and was going to indicate that
Plaintiff had scrapes as opposed to a puncture and gash.
(Doc. 1, p. 14). Moldenhauser did not receive an x-ray until
December 19, 2016, after he filed an emergency grievance.
(Doc. 1, p. 14). Plaintiff does not provide any information
with regard to the medical assessment of his x-rays. Aside
from the bandages he received on the day of the initial
assault and the subsequent x-ray, Plaintiff has not received
any treatment for his injuries. (Doc. 1, p. 15). Plaintiff
continues to suffer from severe pain. (Doc. 1, p. 15). In
addition, he has trouble with mobility and with lifting
things. (Doc. 1, p. 15).
contends that he has received inadequate treatment as a
result of policies implemented by Walls, a healthcare
administrator. (Doc. 1, p. 15).
Plaintiff contends that Wandro, a grievance officer, failed
to properly investigate grievances and otherwise mishandled
his grievances relating to the alleged constitutional
violations. (Doc. 1, p. 15).
respect to Butler, Plaintiff merely alleges that (1) he spoke
to Butler about his treatment on November 4, 2016 (Doc. 1, p.
10, ¶ 7) and (2) he preferred to speak to Butler and
constantly asked staff members to allow him to speak to
Butler, but the staff refused (Doc. 1, p. 10, ¶ 16, 18).
connection with these claims, Plaintiff sues all Defendants
in their individual and official capacities. (Doc. 1, p. 16).
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. (Doc. 1, p. 16). Plaintiff
also seeks injunctive relief. (Doc. 1, p. 17). Specifically,
Plaintiff seeks further treatment for his injuries, an MRI,
and an order directing Menard to adopt or refrain from
enforcing certain policies pertaining to prisoner medical
care. (Doc. 1, p. 17).
preliminary matter, it is necessary to clarify who the
defendants are in the instant action. The body of the
Complaint raises several allegations with regard to a
physician identified as “Moldenhauser.”
Moldenhauser is not identified as a defendant in the caption
of the Complaint or in section of the Complaint that
identifies the parties. Because this individual is not listed
in the caption by name or by Doe designation, he will not be
treated as a defendant in this case, and any claims against
him should be considered dismissed without prejudice.
See FED. R. CIV. P. 10(a) (noting that the title of
the complaint “must name all the parties”);
Myles v. United States,416 F.3d 551, 551-52 (7th
Cir. 2005) (to be properly considered a party a defendant