United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
E. SHADID UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
cause is before the Court for merit review of the
Plaintiff's complaint. The Court is required by 28 U.S.C.
§1915A to “screen” the Plaintiff's
complaint, and through such process to identify and dismiss
any legally insufficient claim, or the entire action if
warranted. A claim is legally insufficient if it “(1)
is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.
Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, says his constitutional rights
were violated at Taylorville Correctional Center by Wexford
Health Sources, Nurse Meghan Eggimann, Nurse Kathy Galvin,
Healthcare Administrator Lisa Mincy, Warden Kimberly Smith
and the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC). Plaintiff
says his “psych doctor” changed his medication
and the first time Plaintiff was scheduled to receive the new
prescription, Defendant Nurse Eggimann gave him the wrong
pills. (Comp., p. 4). As a result, Plaintiff says he was sick
for approximately 18 hours and could not get out of bed.
Plaintiff says Defendant Eggiman ultimately admitted she had
made a mistake and she provided him with another inmate's
medication. Nonetheless, Defendant Eggiman told Plaintiff he
should have contacted the Health Care Unit when he began to
feel sick. Plaintiff says initially he did not know what was
wrong, and then he felt too ill to get out of bed.
also alleges Defendant HealthCare Administrator Mincy denied
he was given the wrong medication and she threatened
Plaintiff on three occasions. Plaintiff does not explain the
threats, but Plaintiff does claim Defendant Mincy reported
him to Internal Affairs. Plaintiff says “an
investigation was conducted and nothing was done to my
knowledge.” (Comp., p. 5).
says the Director of Nursing, Defendant Galvin, told
Plaintiff he was doing the right thing complaining about
Nurse Eggiman's conduct because it was not the first time
the nurse had made this mistake. This is the only mention of
Defendant Galvin in the complaint and therefore Plaintiff has
not alleged the Director of Nursing violated his
constitutional rights. In addition, Plaintiff makes no
mention of Defendants Wexford, Smith or IDOC in his
complaint. See Potter v Clark, 497 F.2d 1206, 1207
(7th Cir. 1974) (“Where a complaint alleges no specific
act or conduct on the part of the defendant and the complaint
is silent as to the defendant except for his name appearing
in the caption, the complaint is properly dismissed, even
under the liberal construction to be given pro se
establish an Eighth Amendment violation, Plaintiff must
demonstrate he suffered from a serious medical condition and
the Defendant was deliberately indifferent to that condition.
See Farmer v Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994). However,
the Eighth Amendment is not a vehicle for bringing claims of
medical malpractice. Snipes v. DeTella, 95 F.3d 586,
590 (7th Cir. 1996). Therefore, inadequate medical treatment
due to negligence or even gross negligence does not support
an Eighth Amendment violation. Shockley v Jones, 823
F.3d 1068, 1072 (7th Cir. 1987).
Plaintiff has alleged a serious medical condition, the
actions of the Defendants constitute negligence, not a
deprivation of a constitutional right. See Johnson v.
Doe, 234 F.3d 1273 (7th Cir. 2000) (dismissal proper
when prisoner only alleged that officials “mistakenly
gave him the wrong medication”); Gillon v.
Richmond, 2017 WL 67635, at *1-2 (N.D.Ind., Jan. 5,
2017)(nurse's action of providing wrong medication was
negligence under state law, but did not state a
constitutional violation); Robbins v Pollard, 2016
WL 8672956, at *2 (E.D.Wis. Nov. 18, 2016)(“While the
incident is regrettable, plaintiff is not entitled to
recovery under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for receiving the wrong
medication on one occasion.”); Sharp v.
Keeling, 2016 WL 7230448, at *3 (S.D.Ill.Dec. 4,
2016)(“a bare allegation that an officer gave a
detainee the wrong medication suggests only negligent conduct
by that official, and not the kind of recklessness needed to
put forth a constitutional claim.”); Dorn v.
Powers, 2011 WL 6890466, at *4 (S.D.Ill.Dec. 30,
2011)(providing wrong medication on one occasion “is
simply carelessness, ” not a constitutional violation);
Ehrenberg v. Wis. Dep't of Corr., 2010 WL
5089484 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 7, 2010) (prisoner stated no
constitutional claim based on allegations that he was given
the wrong dosage of medicine); Kirkwood v. Sirin,
2006 WL 587698 *3 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 9, 2006) (prisoner failed
to state constitutional claim for being given wrong
medication on one day); Positano v. Wetzel, 529
Fed.Appx. 116, 119 (3d Cir. 2013) (allegation that doctor
gave a prisoner the “wrong medication” suggested
at best “medical malpractice, ” and not a
constitutional violation); Daniels v. Beasley, 241
Fed.Appx. 219, 220 (5th Cir. 2007) (allegation that prisoner
was given “wrong medication” did not establish
“actions involv[ing] more than negligence”).
Therefore, the Court must dismiss Plaintiff's complaint
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
THEREFORE ORDERED that:
Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a
claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915A. This case is closed. All pending motions are
denied as moot. [5, 7].
dismissal shall count as one of the Plaintiff's three
allotted strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g). The
clerk of the court is directed to record the Plaintiff's
strike in the three-strike log.
Plaintiff must still pay the full docketing fee of $350 even
though his case has been dismissed. The agency having custody
of Plaintiff shall continue to make monthly payments to the
Clerk of Court, as directed in the Court's prior order.
the Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he may file a
notice of appeal with this court within 30 days of the entry
of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). A motion for leave to
appeal in forma pauperis MUST set forth the issues
the Plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See Fed.
R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If the Plaintiff does choose to
appeal, he will be liable for the $505 appellate filing fee
irrespective of the outcome of the appeal.