United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
PHIL GILBERT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Prestin Green, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections who is currently incarcerated at Sheridan
Correctional Center, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against officials at Perry County Jail
(“Jail”). (Doc. 1). Plaintiff claims that he was
denied necessary treatment and medication for an unspecified
medical condition at the Jail. (Id. at p. 5). He
suffered numerous seizures that caused injuries.
(Id.). Plaintiff seeks monetary relief against the
defendants. (Id. at p. 6).
Complaint is now before the Court for preliminary review
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the Court to
screen prisoner Complaints and filter out non-meritorious
claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of the
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. 2009).
makes the following allegations in the Complaint: During his
detention at the Jail in October 2018, Plaintiff was denied
medication for an undisclosed medical condition. (Doc. 1, p.
5). He suffered multiple seizures that resulted in injuries,
and he was treated at Carbondale Memorial Hospital. Before
discharging Plaintiff, a neurologist provided him with a
prescription for benzodiazepines and orders that cautioned
against sudden cessation of the medication. Plaintiff
provided the prescription and orders to Jail
“authorities,” who again failed to administer the
medication as prescribed. Plaintiff suffered additional
seizures and related injuries. He blames “the [d]octor
and staff . . . who[se] attention it was brought to that this
was occurring.” (Id.).
on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to designate a single claim in this pro
Count 1: Defendants denied Plaintiff
adequate medical care and medication for his unspecified
medical condition at the Jail in October 2018.
other claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not
addressed herein is considered dismissed without prejudice as
inadequately pled under
analytical framework for Plaintiff’s claim depends on
his status as a pretrial detainee or a convicted person in
October 2018, when his claims arose against Jail officials.
The Fourteenth Amendment governs claims for the denial of
medical care brought by a pretrial detainee, and the Eighth
Amendment governs claims brought by a convicted person.
Currie v. Chabra, 728 F.3d 626, 628-29 (7th Cir.
2013). It is unclear which constitutional amendment governs
Plaintiff’s claim at this stage, but this issue can be
resolved as the case proceeds.
faces a more fundamental problem with his claim at screening.
Section 1983 creates a cause of action based on personal
liability and predicated upon fault. Pepper v. Village of
Oak Park, 430 F.3d 809, 810 (7th Cir. 2005). An
individual defendant cannot be liable under Section 1983,
unless he or she “caused or participated” in a
constitutional deprivation. Id. The allegations must
at least suggest that each defendant violated
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
Complaint does not establish any defendant’s
involvement in a constitutional deprivation. Plaintiff
identifies Defendants Lochard, Clark, Lilly, Loucks, and
Baris as defendants in the case caption of the Complaint and
the list of defendants. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-2). However, he
mentions none of them in the statement of claim.
(Id. at p. 5). The reason that plaintiffs, even
those proceeding pro se, for whom the Court is
required to liberally construe complaints, see Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), are required to
associate specific defendants with specific claims is so
these defendants are put on notice of the claims brought
against them and so they can properly answer the complaint.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief,” in order to
‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim
is and the grounds upon which it rests.’”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). However, invoking a
potential defendant’s name by listing him or her in the
case caption is not enough to state a claim against that
individual. See Collins v. Kibort, 143 F.3d 331, 334
(7th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, Count 1 cannot proceed against
any of the defendants and shall be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to state a claim.
Count 1 is the only claim, the Complaint does not survive
preliminary review and shall be dismissed. However, Plaintiff
will have an opportunity to re-plead his claim, if he wishes
to proceed any further with this action. When preparing a
First Amended Complaint, he should identify each defendant in
the case caption and set forth sufficient allegations against
each defendant to describe what the defendant did, or failed
to do, to violate his constitutional rights.