United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
MICHAEL M. MIHM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
proceeding pro se, pursues a § 1983 action for
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need at the Ford
County Jail (“Jail”). The case is before the
Court for a merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
In reviewing the Complaint, the Court accepts the factual
allegations as true, liberally construing them in
Plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d
645, 649-51 (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. United States, 721 F.3d
418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(citation and internal quotation
marks omitted). While the pleading standard does not require
“detailed factual allegations”, it requires
“more than an unadorned,
Wilson v. Ryker, 451 Fed.Appx. 588, 589 (7th Cir.
2011) quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
a pretrial detainee, has a history of high blood pressure and
heart attack. On August 11, 2017, he experienced severe
headache, chest and stomach pain, and began vomiting blood.
He notified Deputy Tardiff, not a party, who called Defendant
Bruens, the Jail Administrator. Defendant Bruens took
Plaintiff's vital signs and noted a blood pressure of
191/119. She initiated a medical protocol and phoned
Defendant Dr. Lochard, offering the opinion that the vomiting
of blood was caused by irritation from antibiotics and blood
pressure medication. Dr. Lochard ordered .3 mg of Clondine
which Defendant Bruens administered. Plaintiff claims that he
continued to experience chest and stomach pain, though
apparently no further vomiting. Plaintiff asked to be seen
when a medical doctor was at the Jail the following day, but
Defendant Bruens refused.
claims that he should have been seen by a physician on August
11, 2017, and not merely had jail staff relay orders. He
asserts that the Defendant Sheriff Dolan, Ford County and
Advanced Health Care Solutions, Dr. Lochard's employer,
had an unconstitutional policy which allowed this practice.
Plaintiff does not, however, claim that he was injured as a
result of the policy. Here, the bleeding apparently stopped
after he was administered the Clondine. As a result, it would
not have made a difference whether Dr. Lochard had ordered
the medication in-person or over the phone. While Plaintiff
alleges that he continued to be in pain and should have been
seen, this was apparently not caused by the tele-med policy
but, rather, Defendant Bruens' refusal to schedule him.
This, especially, as Plaintiff does not allege that Dr.
Lochard was told that he continued to experience pain after
the August 11, 2017 intervention.
Plaintiff does not allege that he was injured due to the
policy in question, the claim against Ford County, Sheriff
Dolan and Advanced Health Care Solutions is DISMISSED.
See Teesdale v. City of Chicago, 690 F.3d 829, 833
(7th Cir. 2012) (plaintiff must show the policy not only
causes, but is the ‘moving force' causing the
Plaintiff names Dr. Lochard, he directs no allegations
against him and does not allege that Dr. Lochard was told
that Plaintiff continued to experience stomach and chest
pain. “[T]to be liable under [Section] 1983, an
individual defendant must have caused or participated in a
constitutional deprivation.” Pepper v. Village of
Oak Park, 430 F.3d 809, 810 (7th Cir. 2005) (citations
omitted). Merely naming a defendant in the caption is
insufficient to state a claim. See Collins v.
Kibort, 143 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir.1998). Dr. Lochard is
makes a statement that retaliation is unlawful, without
identifying any retaliatory actions by Defendants. He also
complains that he was denied unspecified hygiene supplies and
that he went five months without a haircut. These claims are
too vague to state a constitutional claim and, further,
represent an impermissible misjoinder. See Davis v.
Harding, 12-cv-559, 2013 WL 6441027, at *2 (W.D. Wis.
Dec. 9, 2013) (plaintiff may join several defendants in one
suit only if the claims arose out of a single transaction and
contain a question of fact or law common to all the
defendants.” See also, Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a).
This case shall procced on the claim Defendant Bruens was
deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's complaints of
stomach and chest pain and for not scheduling him to be seen
by a physician on August 12, 2017.
Court notes that Plaintiff has filed a petition to proceed in
forma pauperis . The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's
trust fund ledgers which show that on February 17, 2017, he
had a balance of $1147.84. In the ensuing six months he
received deposits, mostly gifts, in the amount of $2, 509.00.
Plaintiff makes regular commissary and phone card purchases
to the extent that on the last date of the six month
look-back period, he had only $80.40 in his account.
Plaintiff had filed a prior complaint, Widmer v. Ford
County Illinois, No. 17-2155 (C.D.Ill Jul. 6, 2017), in
which the Court determined that, as Plaintiff had an average
monthly income of $500, he could pay the $400 fee over a
three-month period. When Plaintiff failed to do so, the case
more recent ledgers reveal an average monthly income of
$418.16. The Court finds, therefore, that Plaintiff has the
ability to pay the $400 filing fee and orders that he do so
over a four-month period.  is DENIED and Plaintiff is
ordered to pay the filing fee over a four month period or his
case will be dismissed without prejudice.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. This case shall proceed solely on the claims of deliberate
indifference against Defendant Bruens. All other claims will
not be included in the case, except in the Court's
discretion upon motion by a party for good cause shown, or by
leave of court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15. Defendants Ford County, Doran, Lochard and Advanced
Health Care Solutions are DISMISSED.
2. Plaintiff's petition to proceed in forma pauperis 
is DENIED. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the$400 filing fee
over a four month period. If he fails to do so, his case will
be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff's Motion for
Status Hearing  is rendered MOOT by this Order.
3. The Clerk is directed to send to each Defendant pursuant
to this District's internal procedures: 1) a Notice of
Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service; 2) a Waiver of
Service; 3) a copy of the Complaint; and 4) a copy of this
4. If a Defendant fails to sign and return a Waiver of
Service to the Clerk within 30 days after the Waiver is sent,
the Court will take appropriate steps to effect formal
service on that Defendant and will require that Defendant pay
the full costs of formal service pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(d)(2). If a Defendant no longer works at
the address provided by Plaintiff, the entity for which
Defendant worked at the time identified in the Complaint
shall provide to the Clerk Defendant's current work
address, or, if not known, Defendant's forwarding
address. This information will be used only for purposes of