Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Chaney v. Wall

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

August 8, 2019

ARTHUR CHANEY, #Y16794, Plaintiff,


          STACI M. YANDLE United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff's 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).

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff 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.

         Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court designates a single claim:

Count 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Wall, Lang, and Rayburn for refusing or failing to provide Plaintiff his pain medication when requested.

         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 claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed in this Order is considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under Twombly.[1]

         Preliminary Dismissals

          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 without prejudice.

         Additionally, 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.

         Finally, 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.


         Coun ...

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.