United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
KENDRICK H. INGRAM, SR., Plaintiff,
DR. F. AHMED, NICHOLAS R. LAMB, MICHAEL S. DEIMEL, J. FREEMAN, KEVIN KINK, MS. CUNNINGHAM, and DR. BROOKHART, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE .
Kendrick H. Ingram, Sr., an inmate of the Illinois Department
of Corrections (“IDOC”) who is currently
incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center
(“Lawrence”), brings this action for deprivations
of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges he became ill after
being subjected to unsanitary conditions in the cafeteria,
and that Defendants failed to properly treat his associated
gastrointestinal problems. In connection with these claims,
he seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief (unspecified
medical treatment), presumably at the close of the case.
case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section
1915A, the Court is required to screen prisoner complaints to
filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). Any portion of a complaint that is legally
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a
defendant who by law is immune from such relief must be
dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff makes the following
allegations: In July 2017, after being subjected to
unsanitary conditions in the cafeteria, Plaintiff suffered
from gastrointestinal symptoms (stomach pain, excessive gas,
and diarrhea). (Doc. 1, pp. 5, 7). Plaintiff's first two
requests for medical attention were ignored by unspecified
individuals in the healthcare unit. (Doc. 1, p. 5). On August
1, 2017, Plaintiff was seen by a nurse (not a defendant in
this action). The unspecified nurse refused to accept
Plaintiff's stool sample and apparently failed to provide
any treatment. Id. Over the next few weeks,
Plaintiff lost 35 pounds and suffered from severe pain and
gastrointestinal symptoms, including vomiting, diarrhea, and
blood in his stool. Id. On August 25, 2017, after
providing stool and urine samples to Dr. Ahmed, Plaintiff was
diagnosed with an intestinal infection and was referred to an
outside specialist. Id. Plaintiff was examined by
the specialist on November 7, 2017 and was scheduled for a
colonoscopy in February 2018. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Prior to the
colonoscopy, Plaintiff was on a liquid diet for approximately
16 hours. After the colonoscopy was performed, Plaintiff was
informed that officials at Lawrence should have had Plaintiff
on a liquid diet for at least 48 hours prior to the
procedure, and Plaintiff had to be scheduled for a second
colonoscopy. Id. Dr. Ahmed subsequently apologized
to Plaintiff for the mistake. Id.
February 17 and 18, 2018, while waiting for his second
colonoscopy, Plaintiff became ill and repeatedly requested
emergency medical attention. Id. Officer Freeman
ignored Plaintiff's repeated pleas for medical attention.
Id. This placed Plaintiff in a “desperate
situation” and resulted in Plaintiff being charged with
staff assault. Id.
February 19, 2018, Plaintiff went on a hunger strike.
Id. He told Warden Kink and Major Wheeler that he
wanted them to (1) reduce or strike the assault charge from
his record; (2) “speed up” his colonoscopy
appointment; and (3) give him a “special shop” so
he would not have to endure unsanitary conditions in the
cafeteria in the future. Id. Warden Kink and Major
Wheeler granted two of his three requests. Id.
Unfortunately, however, Plaintiff does not specify which
requests were granted. Id. Plaintiff's second
colonoscopy was performed on May 1, 2018, but there was no
follow-up. The Complaint does not include any additional
allegations regarding the alleged lack of follow-up.
seeks damages for the suffering he experienced from July 25,
2017, through May 1, 2018. (Doc. 1, pp. 6-7). He also seeks
further medical treatment for the gastrointestinal symptoms
he experienced because of unsanitary conditions in the
Warden Lamb, Warden Brookhart, and Officer Deimel are not
referenced in the body of the Complaint. Merely naming a
party in the caption of a complaint is not enough to state a
claim against him. Collins v. Kibort, 143 F.3d 331,
334 (7th Cir. 1998). Further, Plaintiff's failure to
assert a specific act of wrongdoing as to these individuals
does not meet the personal involvement requirement necessary
for § 1983 liability. See Gentry v. Duckworth,
65 F.3d 555, 561 (7th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, these
Defendants will be dismissed from the Complaint without
body of the Complaint directs allegations against Major
Wheeler and an unspecified nurse. These individuals, however,
are not identified as defendants in the case caption or list
of defendants. Accordingly, any claims Plaintiff intended to
bring against Major Wheeler and the unspecified nurse are
dismissed without prejudice. See Myles v. United
States, 416 F.3d 551, 551-52 (7th Cir. 2005).
on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into two
Count 1: From July 25, 2017, through May 1, 2018, Dr.
Ahmed, Warden Kink, and
Cunningham were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's
serious medical condition in ...