United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Lee Everett Nichols, an apparent pretrial detainee at St.
Clair County Jail (“Jail”), brings this action
for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that Jail officials have
exhibited deliberate indifference to his medical needs. In
connection with his claims, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages
and injunctive relief.
Complaint is now before the Court for a 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
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.
brings three generalized complaints about his medical care at
the Jail: (1) A “number of times” Plaintiff has
been denied medical treatment; (2) after submitting a sick
call, it can take up to 43 days to be seen; and (3) after
submitting a request for mental health treatment, it can take
over 70 days to be seen. (Doc. 1, p. 5). With the exception
of an incident relating to an injury to his hand (described
below), Plaintiff does not provide any additional information
pertaining to these claims. Additionally, Plaintiff does not
associate these claims with any particular individual.
provides a few specific allegations regarding allegedly
inadequate treatment for an injury to his hand. Id.
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff “smashed”
his hand in a power door on February 7, 2018. Id.
The nurses and officers told Plaintiff his hand was broken.
Dr. Larson refused to show Plaintiff his x-rays. Dr. Larson
simply told Plaintiff to avoid using his “damaged
hand” and he would be fine. Id. According to
the Complaint, as of the date of filing, Plaintiff's hand
is still injured (“hand is not 100% usable”), and
Plaintiff has three scars on his hand. Id.
of Certain Defendants
not Associated with Specific Allegations
outlining Plaintiff's claims, the Court finds it
appropriate to address Plaintiff's failure to include
specific allegations against Watson (the Sheriff), McLaurin
(Jail Director), and Nurse Debbra (Medical Records/Lead
Nurse) in the body of his 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).
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). Because Plaintiff has failed to
include any specific allegations in the statement of claim
pertaining to these individuals, they will be dismissed from
this action without prejudice. The Court notes, however, that
Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief. Accordingly, Watson,
the Sheriff, shall remain a defendant, in his official
capacity only, for the purpose of carrying ...