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.

White v. Baldwin

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

August 22, 2019

JAISON A. WHITE, Plaintiff,



         Plaintiff Jaison White, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) who is currently incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center (“Lawrence”), brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff alleges that while at Vienna Correctional Center (“Vienna”), Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his stomach ailment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

         This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the 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).

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff makes the following allegations in his Complaint (Doc. 1): On November 5, 2018, while incarcerated at Vienna Correctional Center, Plaintiff developed a stomach ailment after eating two trays from the commissary. (Doc. 1, p. 5). He woke in the middle of the night with severe stomach pains and watery stool. In the morning, he was able to drink apple juice before again developing a stomachache. He became light headed and asked a correctional officer to contact the healthcare unit. He used the bathroom several more times. (Id.). He drank more apple juice, but began vomiting. Plaintiff waited approximately ten minutes before talking with the correctional officer again. The officer told Plaintiff that he would take him to the healthcare unit if he vomited again. (Id.). Plaintiff began dry heaving and the officer escorted him to the healthcare unit. Plaintiff was seen by John Doe Nurse who assessed him. Plaintiff began vomiting again. (Id. at pp. 5-6). He was taken back to his cell because he could not hold his bowels and needed to use the bathroom.

         A few hours after returning to his cell, Plaintiff was escorted back to healthcare unit to see Jane Doe Physician. (Doc. 1, p. 6). She evaluated Plaintiff, developed a treatment plan for his condition, and placed him in an observation cell to start him on an IV. Initially, the saline bag was not properly hooked up to Plaintiff's IV and he bled on the floor. The saline bag was then properly connected and Plaintiff was sedated. He awoke to John Doe Nurse cleaning the blood off the floor without sanitizer or bleach. Plaintiff was then directed to relieve himself in a plastic bottle and to provide a stool sample. He was monitored for several hours and was then transferred to the healthcare unit for further observation. (Id.).

         Although Plaintiff was not initially restrained in the healthcare unit, he was later informed by correctional officers that he would have to be restrained and could ask to be unrestrained to use the restroom. When officers did not respond quick enough to uncuff Plaintiff when he needed to use the restroom, he asked to be taken back to his cell and his observation ended. Plaintiff wrote a grievance about his illness, but did not receive a response before transferring to Lawrence.

         Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to designate the following Count in this pro se action:

Count 1:John Doe Nurse and Jane Doe Physician were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's stomach ailment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

         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 standard.[1]


         Preliminary Dismissals

         Although Plaintiff identifies John Baldwin and Wexford Health Inc. as Defendants in the caption of his Complaint (Doc. 1, p. 1), he fails to include any allegations against either Defendant in the statement of his claim. Further, as a corporation, Wexford can only be held liable for deliberate indifference if it had a policy or practice that caused the alleged violation of a constitutional right. Woodward v. Corr. Med. Serv. of Ill., Inc., 368 F.3d 917, 927 (7th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff has pointed to no such policy or practice that allegedly caused a violation of his constitutional rights. Accordingly, John Baldwin and Wexford Health Inc. are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim.

         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.