United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Phil Gilbert, United States District Judge.
William Kampwerth, an inmate in Madison County 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 needs. (Doc. 10). This
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which
(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.
careful review of the Amended Complaint and any supporting
exhibits, the Court finds that the Amended Complaint is
subject to summary dismissal.
Amended Complaint (Doc. 10), Plaintiff makes the following
allegations: Plaintiff came from the Illinois Department of
Corrections December 22, 2014 to February 5, 2015. (Doc. 10,
p. 6). He was on Risperdol, which did not work for him.
Id. Plaintiff told the nurses, but they told him his
Invega shot was over two months old and refused to give it to
him. Id. They did this despite knowing that he needs
his Invega shot “[f]rom when [he] hung [himself] ¶
2013 they gave it to [him] and sent [him] to prison where
[their] medicine did not work.” Id.
doctor, Sheriff, and Captain denied [Plaintiff his] shot . .
. until after [he] hung [himself] and was strapped to the
chair.” Id. Plaintiff was then found
“unfit” and he was sent to Chester. Id.
Now, he is “back and getting [his] shot.”
Id. Plaintiff “was in the chair for 8 days and
[his] feet swelled up from 11 to 15 inch sandals. [He] was
barely eating.” (Doc. 10, p. 7). The Doctor told him
that he would get Plaintiff his shot if he got out of the
chair. Id. The Sheriff, Captain Joseph, Dr. Robert
Blankenship, and Nurse Jane Doe “all knew.”
Id. Captain Boss “knew from what happened in
2013 when [Plaintiff] first hung [himself].”
requests monetary damages from the defendants. (Doc. 10, p.
Court will begin its discussion of Plaintiff's claims
with a word about the parties. Plaintiff failed to include
allegations against the Madison County Sheriff's
Department in his statement of claim, despite the requirement
that plaintiffs 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 Twombly, 550 at 555; Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2). 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.