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.

Kampwerthh v. Madison County Sheriff's Department

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

April 16, 2018

WILLIAM KAMPWERTH, Plaintiff,
v.
MADISON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, SHERIFF LAKIN, CAPTAIN BOSS, CAPTAIN JOSEPH, JANE DOE, ROBERT BLANKENSHIP, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          J. Phil Gilbert, United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff 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 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 that the Amended Complaint is subject to summary dismissal.

         The Amended Complaint

         In his 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.

         “The 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].” Id.

         Plaintiff requests monetary damages from the defendants. (Doc. 10, p. 8).

         Discussion

         The 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. ...


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.