United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL, CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
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.).
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).
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.
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,  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. (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.
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
Claims Against Non-Parties
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.