United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
BRYON K. CHAMP, Plaintiff,
BREE BARNETT, and CHARLIE SMITH, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. Yandle United States District Judge.
Bryon K. Champ, currently a pretrial detainee at Winnebago -
WCY, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
alleged deprivations of his constitutional while he was a
pretrial detainee at Chester Mental Health Facility
(“Chester”). Plaintiff's original Complaint
(Doc 1) alleged a single Count against Bree Barnett and
Charlie Smith for improperly discontinuing his seizure
medication for a single day. The Court dismissed
Plaintiff's original Complaint for failure to state a
claim and Plaintiff was given leave to amend. (Doc. 12). In
the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 13), Plaintiff again
alleges that Barnett and Smith improperly withheld a single
dose of his seizure medication.
matter is now before the Court for preliminary review of the
First Amended 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).
First Amended Complaint
makes the following allegations in his First Amended
Complaint: On August 7, 2019, while Plaintiff was in the
med-line at Chester, Barnett refused to give Plaintiff his
seizure medication, Dilantin. (Doc. 13, p. 8). Barnett
informed Plaintiff that Smith had determined that
Plaintiff's Dilantin levels were too high based on recent
blood work and that he was not allowed his medication.
(Id.). Plaintiff did not have a follow-up meeting
with Smith, nor was he provided the results of his blood
work. His Dilantin was discontinued for one day. Plaintiff
believes his Dilantin should have been reduced rather than
entirely discontinued. Plaintiff suffered headaches and
dizziness but was not provided with any pain medication.
(Id. at p. 9).
on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to designate the following single Count in the
pro se action:
Count 1:Bree Barnett and Charlie Smith were
objectively unreasonable in deciding to
discontinue Plaintiff's Dilantin in violation of the
parties and the Court will use these designations in all
future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a
judicial officer of this Court. Any other claim that
is mentioned in the Complaint but not
addressed in this Order should be considered dismissed
without prejudice as inadequately pled under
the Twombly pleading
again fails to state a claim against Barnett and Smith.
Plaintiff repeats the allegation that he was denied one dose
of his Dilantin because the levels in his blood were too high
and that his dosage was continued the next day. The Court
previously found that allegation insufficient to state a
claim. Additionally, Plaintiff now alleges that Smith did not
have a follow-up appointment with him to discuss his Dilantin
levels or his dosage and Barnett did not schedule an
appointment with Smith to discuss Plaintiff's dosage.
(Doc. 13, p. 9). These additional facts do not make
Plaintiff's claim viable. At most, the decision to
completely discontinue Plaintiff's Dilantin for one day
rather than slowly reduce the medication (as Plaintiff
believes was the proper procedure) amounts to negligence,
which is not enough to meet the standard of objective
unreasonableness. McCann v. Ogle City, Illinois, 909
F.3d 881, 886 (7th Cir. 2018).
also alleges that he suffered from headaches and dizziness as
a result of the discontinued medication but was not provided
with any pain relief. However, there is no indication in the
First Amended Complaint that he informed anyone about his
dizziness or pain. Thus, Plaintiff does not allege that the
defendants purposefully, knowingly, or even recklessly denied
him pain medication.
Plaintiff's second unsuccessful attempt to state a viable
claim against Charlie Smith and Bree Barnett, and at this
point, the Court finds that any additional amendment would be
futile. Accordingly, the First Amended Complaint and this
action will be DISMISSED with prejudice.
See Agnew v. NCAA, 683 F.3d 328, 347 (7th Cir.
2012); McCree v. Grissom, 657 F.3d 623, 624 (7th
Cir. 2011); Garcia v. City of Chicago, Ill., 24 F.3d
966, 970 (7th Cir. 1994).
First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with
prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. This shall count as a