United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW OPINION
MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
proceeds pro se from his incarceration in the Shawnee
Correctional Center about an alleged lack of medical care
during his detention in the Jerome Combs Detention Center.
His Complaint is before the Court for a merit review pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This section requires the Court to
identify cognizable claims stated by the Complaint or dismiss
claims that are not cognizable. In reviewing the complaint, the
Court accepts the factual allegations as true, liberally
construing them in Plaintiff's favor and taking
Plaintiff's pro se status into account. Turley v.
Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013).
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 omitted).
first alleges that, on an unspecified date, he visited the
doctor at the Jerome Combs Detention Center with complaints
of difficulty breathing and smelling. The doctor diagnosed a
cold, but the Plaintiff disagreed. These allegations do not
state a plausible constitutional claim. Disagreement with a
doctor's diagnosis does not, by itself, suggest that the
doctor's approach was outside the acceptable range of
professional judgment. Steele v. Choi, 82 F.3d 175,
178-79 (7th Cir. 1996). Further, Plaintiff's description
of his symptoms do not suggest that he had a serious medical
next alleges that, at the Shawnee Correctional Center in
November 2015, he experienced stomach pains and was taken to
the hospital for an appendectomy. The Court is confused as to
why Plaintiff would be at the Shawnee Correctional Center in
November 2015. His criminal case appeared to still be pending
on that date. In any event, these allegations do not allow a
plausible inference that anyone was indifferent to
Plaintiff's stomach pains.
next alleges that in May of an unspecified year (the Court
assumes 2016), he saw the doctor at the Kankakee County Jail
for complaints of bad pain in his chest, heart, arms, and
legs. The doctor told Plaintiff that exercise was causing the
pain and prescribed some unidentified medicine that Plaintiff
never received. In August 2016, Plaintiff felt like he was
having a heart attack and was rushed to the hospital, where
he had some sort of coronary procedure. On return to the
Jail, Plaintiff did not receive the medicines prescribed by
Court cannot rule out a constitutional claim arising from the
doctor's response to Plaintiff's complaints of pain
in his chest, heart, arms, and legs. Plaintiff will need
evidence that the doctor's decisions were a substantial
departure from accepted professional judgment -blatantly
inappropriate. Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722, 729
(7th Cir. 2016). Malpractice is not enough to show a
constitutional violation. Walker v. Peters, 233 F.3d 494, 499
(7th Cir. 2000). However, this determination would be
premature. Plaintiff may also state a possible constitutional
claim based on the alleged refusal to give Plaintiff the
medicines prescribed by the specialist.
will need to identify the names of the doctor and other
medical professionals who allegedly denied him proper care.
“Doe” defendants cannot be served. The Court will
add the Kankakee County Chief of Corrections solely for the
purpose of facilitating the identification of the proper
IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds that Plaintiff states a
constitutional claim for indifference to his serious medical
needs regarding his heart/cardiovascular condition. This case
proceeds solely on the claims identified in this paragraph.
Any additional claims shall not be included in the case,
except at the Court's discretion on motion by a party for
good cause shown or pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
2) Chad Kolitwenzew, Chief of Corrections for Kankakee
County, is added as a Defendant for purposes of facilitating
the identification of the proper Defendants.
3) John Doe 2 (the Sheriff) is dismissed, without prejudice,
for failure to state a claim. No plausible inference arises
on the present allegations that the Sheriff had anything to
do with Plaintiff's medical care.
4) Defendant Jerome Combs Detention Center is dismissed, with
prejudice. The Center is not a suable entity, and only
individuals can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
5) This case is now in the process of service. Plaintiff is
advised to wait until counsel has appeared for Defendants
before filing any motions, in order to give Defendants notice
and an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed
before Defendants' counsel has filed an appearance will
generally be denied as premature. Plaintiff need not submit
any evidence to the Court at this time, unless otherwise
directed by the Court.
6) The Court will attempt service on Defendants by mailing
each Defendant a waiver of service. Defendants have 60 days
from the date the waiver is sent to file an Answer. If
Defendants have not filed Answers or appeared through counsel
within 90 days of the entry of this order, Plaintiff may file
a motion requesting the status of service. After Defendants