United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Charles Miles, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) currently incarcerated at
Danville Correctional Center, brings this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983 for alleged deprivations of his
constitutional rights that occurred while he was in custody
at Lawrence Correctional Center (âLawrenceâ). Plaintiff
alleges he was attacked by another inmate and received
inadequate medical care. He requests money damages.
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).
Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the Complaint
(Doc. 1): On January 23, 2019, following academic school,
Plaintiff returned to his housing unit to find an inmate from
the upper gallery out with the lower gallery inmates during
dayroom privileges. Plaintiff looked for the west wing
officer, Corrections Officer Rue, but could not find him.
Id. at p. 7. He asked to be buzzed into his cell by
the foyer officer. When he entered his cell, he was attacked
by an unknown inmate and stabbed several times. After filing
a grievance, Plaintiff learned that Officer Rue had let the
unknown inmate from the upper gallery out during lower
gallery inmates' dayroom time, despite knowing there was
a risk that inmates could suffer irreparable harm.
Id. at p. 8.
the attack, Plaintiff was treated by Nurse Kate in the Health
Care Unit who told him that she was unable to do surgery. The
next day, Plaintiff was rushed to an outside hospital and
received seven stitches. Id. at p. 9. Upon his
return to Lawrence, he was placed back in the Health Care
Unit, but was not examined by Dr. Shah. When Plaintiff spoke
to Dr. Shah, he told him that his pain medication was
ineffective. Dr. Shah told Plaintiff to deal with the pain
because there was nothing else that he could do. Id.
at p. 10.
on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court designates the
Count 1: Eighth Amendment failure to protect
claim against Rue for allowing upper gallery inmates to mix
with lower gallery inmates during dayroom times, despite
knowing the safety risk.
Count 2: Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need claim against Nurse
Kate and Dr. Shah for failing to provide Plaintiff with
adequate medical treatment following his attack.
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
prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth
Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of
confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an
excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must
both be aware of facts from which the inference could be
drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he
must also draw the inference.” Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Here, Plaintiff
alleges that: (1) Officer Rue is responsible for ensuring
that inmates are accounted for and that upper gallery inmates
and lower gallery inmates receive separate times of dayroom
privileges; (2) prior to the attack he searched for Officer
Rue, but could not find him; and (3) Officer Rue knew that
mixing inmates from the upper and lower galleries placed
inmates at risk of suffering irreparable harm.
held liable under §1983, a defendant must be
“personally responsible for the deprivation of a
constitutional right.” Chavez v. Ill. State
Police,251 F.3d 612, 651 (7th Cir. 2001)(quotations
omitted). Claiming that Officer Rue was responsible for the
inmates in Plaintiff's housing unit and allowed the upper
and lower gallery inmates to mix does not suggest personal
involvement by Officer Rue in the alleged constitutional
deprivation or the ...