United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE United States District Judge.
Arthur Chaney, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) currently incarcerated at
Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”), brings
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights.
Plaintiff alleges Defendants were deliberately indifferent to
his serious medical needs when they denied and delayed the
disbursement of his pain medication. He requests money
damages and injunctive relief.
Complaint is now before the Court for preliminary review
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). 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. 2009).
makes the following allegations in the Complaint (Doc. 1): In
October 2018, Plaintiff was admitted to an outside hospital
on two separate occasions because of his pain. (Doc. 1, pp.
5, 7). On October 11, 2018, prior to his first hospital
visit, Plaintiff requested his pain medication from
Corrections Officer Wall, but never received it. Id.
at p. 6. On another occasion, following his second discharge
from the hospital, he requested his medicine from Nurse
Rayburn around 8 or 9 p.m., but did not receive it for almost
two hours. The next day, Plaintiff requested his medicine
from Medical Technician Amy Lang around 11 p.m. and did not
receive it until 2:40 a.m. Id. at pp. 5-7. On
November 2, 2018, Plaintiff requested his medication twice
and it never came. Id. at p. 7.
on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court designates a
Count 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claim against Wall, Lang, and Rayburn for
refusing or failing to provide Plaintiff his pain medication
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 claim that is
mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed
in this Order is considered dismissed without prejudice as
inadequately pled under
Plaintiff lists Dr. Siddiqui and Chad Frierdich among the
defendants, but makes no allegations against either of them
in the body of the Complaint. Plaintiffs are required to
associate specific defendants with specific claims, so that
defendants are put on notice of the claims brought against
them and they can properly answer the Complaint. See Bell
Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. at 555 (2007); Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2). Where a plaintiff has not included a defendant in
his statement of the claim, the defendant cannot be said to
be adequately put on notice of which claims in the Complaint,
if any, are directed against him. Merely invoking the name of
a potential defendant is not sufficient to state a claim
against that individual. See Collins v. Kibort, 143
F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, Defendants Dr.
Siddiqui and Frierdich will be dismissed from this action
Plaintiff cannot maintain his claims against the Defendant
Illinois Department of Corrections. Not only does he not make
any allegations against IDOC, but it is a state governmental
agency which cannot be sued for money damages. See, Will
v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71
(1989) (“Neither a State nor its officials acting in
their official capacities are ‘persons' under
§ 1983.”). For these reasons, IDOC will be
dismissed from this case with prejudice.
the Court notes that although Plaintiff does not mention the
Warden of Menard in the body of the Complaint, the Warden is
an appropriate official capacity defendant with respect to
Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief. See
Gonzalez v. Feinerman, 663 F.3d 311, 315 (7th Cir.
2011); (Doc. 1, p. 3). Accordingly, “Warden” will
remain on the docket as an official capacity defendant.