United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL, CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court for review of Plaintiff Treondous
Robinson's First Amended Complaint filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff complains of unconstitutional
conditions of confinement resulting in a spider bite at
Lawrence Correctional Center (“Lawrence”). (Doc.
6, pp. 1-52). He seeks money damages and injunctive relief
that includes a transfer to Dixon Correctional Center
(“Dixon”), a job assignment of his choice, and a
single cell for the duration of his confinement.
(Id. at p. 18).
First Amended Complaint is subject to preliminary review
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the Court to
screen prisoner complaints to filter out non-meritorious
claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of a complaint
that is legally frivolous, malicious, meritless, 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). At this
juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se
complaint are to be liberally construed. Rodriguez v.
Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir.
makes the following allegations in the First Amended
Complaint (Doc. 6, pp. 10-52): Due to frequent power outages
at Lawrence in June 2018, inmates were exposed to excessive
heat and humidity, a lack of running water, and pest
infestations in their cells. (Id. at pp. 10-11).
Prison officials disregarded Plaintiff's complaints that
these conditions triggered his asthma and necessitated insect
treatments in each cell. (Id. at pp. 20-22). In July
2018, he received a spider bite that developed into a
“baseball-size” infection on his forearm.
(Id. at p. 23). The institutional physician drained
the infection without applying any numbing agent.
(Id. at pp. 11-17). Plaintiff was not given a
tetanus shot. Fear of another spider bite caused him to
lose sleep. Doctor Rodriguez, the prison psychiatrist,
responded to his complaints of sleep loss by prescribing an
ever-changing cocktail of psychotropic
medications that proved to be ineffective and harmful.
In addition to sleep loss, Plaintiff suffered from medication
side effects that included hallucinations, paranoia,
restlessness, headaches, slow speech, and “lazy”
mannerisms. (Id.). John Baldwin (Illinois Department
of Corrections Director), Sherry Benton (administrative
review board chair), Kevin Kink (Lawrence's warden), and
Dr. Rodriguez disregarded his complaints and prevented him
from exhausting his administrative remedies before filing
on the allegations in the First Amended Complaint, the Court
finds it convenient to re-characterize the claims at
issue in this pro se action as follows:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against
Defendants for subjecting Plaintiff to unconstitutional
conditions of confinement at Lawrence that included frequent
power outages, excessive heat and humidity, a lack of running
water, and a bug/spider infestation beginning in June 2018.
Count 2: Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference to medical needs claim against Defendants for
failing to adequately treat the spider bite that occurred in
Count 3: Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claim against Defendants for failing to ensure
adequate mental health treatment for emotional distress
caused by Plaintiff's spider bite.
Count 4: First and/or Fourteenth Amendment
claim against Defendants for mishandling Plaintiff's
grievances and interfering with his exhaustion of
other claim that is mentioned in the First Amended Complaint
but not addressed in this Order is
considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled
First Amended Complaint (Doc. 6) refers to numerous
individuals who are not named as defendants in this action,
including the counselor (p. 8), grievance officer (p. 8),
Kittle (pp. 13, 21-21, 23-30), Blake (pp. 13, 22), Basnett
(p. 15), institutional physician (p. 16), and Livingston (p.
30). The Court will not treat them as defendants in this
action, absent any indication in the case caption or list of
defendants that they are intended as such. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 10(a) (noting that the title of the complaint
“must name all the parties”); Myles v. United
States, 416 F.3d 551, 551-52 (7th Cir. 2005) (a
defendant must be “specif[ied] in the caption” to
be properly considered a party). All claims against these
individuals should be considered dismissed without prejudice.