United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Tony Garrett, an inmate in Dixon Correctional Center, brings
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
deprivations of his constitutional rights that allegedly
occurred at Pinckneyville Correctional Center. In his
Complaint, Plaintiff claims the defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical issues in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 1). This case is now before the Court
for a preliminary review of the 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
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 Complaint and any supporting exhibits,
the Court finds that the Complaint is subject to summary
Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff makes the following
allegations: in 1993, he had shrapnel in his knee from a
bullet. (Doc. 1, p. 5). It tore ligaments in his right knee,
causing lasting injuries. Id. While he was
incarcerated in Pinckneyville in 2016, Plaintiff began
experiencing severe pain, so he requested medical attention.
Id. He was given ibuprofen for his pain, though he
told the nurse that he could not ingest ibuprofen due to a
medical procedure. Id. Because he could not take the
medicine he was given, Plaintiff continued experiencing pain.
Id. He requested medical assistance again and was
told that they could only give him ibuprofen. Id.
Plaintiff requested to see a physician, but he “was
denied by HCUS.” Id. He was told to put in for
sick call, but “sick call can only give [Plaintiff]
ibuprofen.” Id. There “was no physician
at Pinckneyville to help” Plaintiff with his pain.
requests monetary damages from the defendants. (Doc. 1, p.
Court need not dig deeply into the merits of Plaintiff's
claims, because he failed to include specific allegations
against any of the named defendants in the body of his
Complaint. 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).
Where a 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).
Plaintiff's claims against Pinckneyville Correctional
Center are otherwise barred because IDOC, as a state agency,
is not a “person” that may be sued under §
1983. Thomas v. Illinois, 697 F.3d 612, 613 (7th
Cir. 2012) (citing Will v. Mich. Dep't of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70-71 (1989)); see also 42
U.S .C. § 1983 (“Every person who, under color of
any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any
State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or
causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or
other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured
by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party
injured in an action at law, suit ...