Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Todd v. Wexford Medical Services

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

January 24, 2018

FREDERICK TODD #437573, Plaintiff,
v.
WEXFORD MEDICAL SERVICES, LPN APRIL, ST. CLAIR COUNTY JAIL, and MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          J. Phil Gilbert U.S. District Judge

         Plaintiff Frederick Todd, a detainee in St. Clair County Jail (“Jail”), brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff claims the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical issues and subjected him to unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Doc. 10). This 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 such relief.

         An 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. 2009).

         Upon careful review of the Amended Complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to allow this case to proceed past the threshold stage.

         The Amended Complaint

         In his Amended Complaint (Doc. 10), Plaintiff makes the following allegations: On July 23, 2017, Plaintiff could not breathe, so he asked Defendant April for his asthma inhaler. (Doc. 10, p. 5). April denied Plaintiff's request. Id. “They had [Plaintiff's] inhaler but did not let [him] use it.” Id. “Wexford ignored [Plaintiff's] risk at the” Jail. Id. That same day, Plaintiff was housed in the Gym-Recreation Area, which was an unsafe area to sleep. Id.

         On July 30, 2017, Plaintiff was moved to another living area. Id. In this area, the shower had black mold in it. Id. Breathing in the black mold started to trigger Plaintiff's asthma, but the medical staff did nothing. Id. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. (Doc. 10, p. 6).

         Discussion

         Before analyzing Plaintiff's allegations, the Court finds it appropriate to address Plaintiff's failure to include specific allegations against Defendants Maintenance Department and St. Clair County Jail in the body of his Amended Complaint, despite his having listed them among the defendants. Plaintiffs are required to associate specific defendants with specific claims, so that defendants are put on notice of the claims brought against them and so they can properly answer the complaint. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Where a plaintiff has not included a defendant in his statement of claim, the defendant cannot be said to be adequately put on notice of which claims in the complaint, if any, are directed against him. Furthermore, merely invoking the name of a potential defendant is not sufficient to state a claim against that individual. See Collins v. Kibort, 143 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1998). And in the case of those defendants in supervisory positions, the doctrine of respondeat superior is not applicable to § 1983 actions. Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).

         Further, St. Clair County Jail is not an appropriate defendant in this case. A jail is not a “person” under § 1983. Smith v. Knox Cnty. Jail, 666 F.3d 1037, 1040 (7th Cir. 2012); Powell v. Cook Cnty. Jail, 814 F.Supp. 757, 758 (N.D. Ill. 1993). Additionally, neither it nor its ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.