United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
SCOTT A. MEDFORD, #Y22728, Plaintiff,
SGT. BONJACK and NURSE JANE or JOHN DOE, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Gilbert U.S. District Judge
matter is now before the Court for consideration of the
Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 12) filed by Plaintiff Scott
Medford on February 15, 2018. The instant case was severed
from a civil rights action that Plaintiff filed pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his
constitutional rights at St. Clair County Jail
(“Jail”). See Medford v. McLaurin, Case
No. 17-cv-243-JPG (S.D. Ill.). This case addresses a single
claim against Sergeant Bonjack and Nurse John or Jane Doe for
exposing Plaintiff to staph infection. (“Count 8,
” original action). The Court screened the claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A in the original Complaint
and First Amended Complaint, but it did not survive
preliminary review either time. (Docs. 5, 11). Plaintiff now
reasserts the claim in a Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 12).
is once again subject to preliminary review 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
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 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).
to the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff
was exposed to an inmate, named Arthur Hunsicker, who
suffered from staph infection. (Doc. 12, p. 10). Inmate
Hunsicker complained of a rapidly spreading infection for a
week before receiving antibiotic treatment from a nurse.
Id. He remained in Plaintiff's cell block for
two weeks before being transferred to the infirmary.
this time period, Plaintiff frequently encountered Inmate
Hunsicker in the chow hall and dayroom. (Doc. 12, p. 10).
Plaintiff was housed in cell #9, and Inmate Hunsicker was
housed in cell #11. Id. The two inmates often sat
near one another at meals. Id. Their clothing and
skin frequently touched. Id. Inmate Hunsicker's
staph infection was visible to Plaintiff and caused him to
fear infection. Id. After each encounter with Inmate
Hunsicker, Plaintiff routinely returned to his cell and
washed his body with cold water. Id.
conditions at the Jail were generally unclean. (Doc. 12, p.
10). These conditions included moldy showers, cold showers,
and weekly clothing changes. Id. Although Plaintiff
is pursuing a separate suit to challenge the conditions, he
maintains that the same conditions increased his risk of
contracting staph infection from Inmate Hunsicker. See
Medford v. Unknown Party, No. 17-cv-01012-JPG (S.D.
Ill.). However, the Second Amended Complaint does not
indicate that Plaintiff or any other inmates were diagnosed
with staph following their exposure to Inmate Hunsicker or
that they exhibited any symptoms of infection. (Doc. 12, pp.
April 26, 2017, the entire block wrote a Captain Complaint to
an unnamed administrator and supervisor, asking them to send
Inmate Hunsicker out for treatment. (Doc. 12, p. 10). Even
after the inmates complained, Inmate Hunsicker refused to
lock down. Id. Sergeant Bonjack inspected him and
sent him back to his cell. Id.
unknown nurse, identified herein as Nurse John or Jane Doe,
examined Inmate Hunsicker approximately one week into the
relevant time period. (Doc. 12, p. 10). The nurse bandaged
his “huge boils” and gave him antibiotics before
telling Inmate Hunsicker to return to his cell block. (Doc.
12, p. 11). A week later on May 11, 2017, Inmate Hunsicker
was moved into the infirmary. Id ...