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.

Winger v. Doe

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

July 15, 2019

MARK WINGER, K-97120, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN/JANE DOE 3, [1] DR. DIEBOLD, J.B. PRITZKER, BRUCE RAUNER, JOHN BALDWIN, and LOUIS SHICKER, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL, CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Mark Winger filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for federal and state law deprivations that allegedly occurred during his incarceration in the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) between 2012 and 2018. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-156). The Complaint addressed five separate incidents against defendants at multiple institutions. (Id.).

         In a Memorandum and Order dated May 1, 2019, the Court severed the claims arising from four incidents into separate cases. (Doc. 8). This case focuses on a fifth incident involving the denial of dental care for Plaintiff's loose crown at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”) in 2018. (Docs. 1, 8). The allegations in the original Complaint stated no claim for relief against the only defendant named in connection with the claim(s) (i.e., John/Jane Doe 3). (Doc. 1, pp. 5-10). Accordingly, the Complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and Plaintiff was granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint to address his dental claim(s). (Doc. 8).

         The First Amended Complaint (Doc. 11) is now before the Court for preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Section 1915A requires the Court to screen prisoner complaints and filter out non-meritorious claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or requests money damages from an immune defendant must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). At this juncture, the factual allegations are liberally construed. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).

         First Amended Complaint

         Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the First Amended Complaint (Docs. 11, 11-1, and 11-2): Bruce Rauner (former Governor of Illinois), J.B. Pritzker (present Governor of Illinois), John Baldwin (IDOC Director), and Louis Shicker (IDOC Medical Director) (collectively “State Defendants”) failed to ensure constitutionally adequate medical and dental care for inmates at Menard and other IDOC facilities prior to and including 2018. (Doc. 11-1, pp. 13-28). As a result of systemic failures, [2] Dr. Diebold (dentist) and John/Jane Doe 3 (scheduling nurse) (collectively “Individual Defendants”) delayed prompt repair of Plaintiff's loose crown for several months in 2018, resulting in unnecessary pain and suffering.[3] (Id. at pp. 3-10). Plaintiff requests monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief against the State and Individual Defendants on behalf of himself and a group of similarly situated plaintiffs. (Id. at p. 10).

         Based on the allegations in the First Amended Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into the following two (2) counts:

Count 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against State Defendants (Pritzker, Rauner, Baldwin, and Shicker) for allowing inadequate staffing, leadership vacancies, and insufficient sick call procedures that caused the delay and/or denial of dental care for Plaintiff's loose crown at Menard in 2018.
Count 2: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Individual Defendants (Dr. Diebold and John/Jane Doe 3) for delaying or denying dental care for Plaintiff's loose crown at Menard in 2018.

(Doc. 11, p. 6). 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 First Amended Complaint but not addressed herein should be considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under Twombly.[4]

         Preliminary Dismissals

         A. Claims Against Non-Parties

         Throughout the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff refers to individuals who are not named as defendants, such as Dr. Shah, Dr. Asselmeier, Dr. Siddiqui, Ron Skidmore, and Wexford. Plaintiff cannot bring a claim against these, or any other, non-parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a); Myles v. United States, 416 F.3d 551, 551-52 (7th Cir. 2005) (defendants must be “specif[ied] in the caption”). All claims against non-parties should be considered dismissed without prejudice.

         B. Class ...


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.