United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. REINHARD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
[1');">1" name="FN1');">1" id="FN1');">1">1');">1]
Caleb Charleston, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) currently incarcerated at
Illinois River Correctional Center, brings this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1');">1983 for alleged
deprivations of his constitutional rights that occurred while
he was in custody at Menard Correctional Center
(“Menard”). Plaintiff alleges he was attacked by
other inmates after notifying corrections officers that he
was in danger and then received inadequate medical care
following the attack. He requests money damages.
case is now before the court for preliminary review pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1');">191');">15A. Under Section 1');">191');">15A, the court is
required to screen prisoner complaints to filter out
non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. §
1');">191');">15A(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. § 1');">191');">15A(b). At this juncture, the
factual allegations of the pro se complaint are to
be liberally construed. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance
Serv., 1');">16');">577 F.3d 81');">16, 821');">1 (7th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the complaint:
On September 6, 201');">17, after not being searched or shook down
by John Doe correction officers 1');">1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6,
plaintiff and other inmates from 7 gallery went to the yard.
([1');">1], p. 1');">17). While in the yard, other inmates started to
threaten plaintiff with physical violence if he did not leave
the yard. He went to John Doe correction officers 7, 8, 9,
and 1');">10 for help and told them that other inmates had shanks
and were threatening to attack him and asked to leave the
yard. The officers laughed at plaintiff and taunted him with
racial and homosexual slurs. Id. at p. 1');">18. John Doe
7 told plaintiff to get away from the gate. After returning
to the yard, plaintiff was attacked by multiple inmates, who
kicked, punched, and stabbed him. Plaintiff states that
various officers and warden Jones all watched from behind the
gate as he and four other inmates were stabbed. Id.
at p. 1');">19.
the incident, while waiting to be handcuffed and escorted
from the yard, plaintiff told warden Jones, correction
officer Westerman, and lieutenant Schoenveck that he had been
stabbed in his right arm and could not move it. Id.
at pp. 1');">19, 29. Warden Jones instructed Westerman to cuff him
extra tight. Using excessive force, Westerman forced
plaintiff's injured arm behind his back causing
additional pain to his arm, hands, and wrists.
health care unit, plaintiff was treated by nurse McGee who
cleaned and put a small bandage on his stab wound.
Id. Even with the bandage, his arm continued to
bleed. She said that there was nothing more she could do for
him and denied him medicine for the pain. He then told
correction officer Wooley, who was in the room with him, that
he was in extreme pain and that his arm was still bleeding.
Wooley stated that it was not her job to get plaintiff
adequate medical treatment, and that she was only there to
take pictures of the injuries and bloody clothes.
Id. at p. 20. Plaintiff left health care with his
arm still bleeding, still in pain, and was never seen by a
next week plaintiff's arm continued to bleed and he was
in extreme pain. At various times he asked several officers
and staff, including correction officers Gardner, Wooley,
Gee, John Doe 1');">12, McCaleb, and Caron, and mental health staff
member Jane Doe 1');">11');">1, for additional medical attention, but was
denied. Id. at pp. 20-21');">1.
on the allegations in the complaint, the court finds it
convenient to delineate the claims in this case into the
following counts (claims):
Count 1');">1: Eighth Amendment failure to protect
claim against Jones and John Doe correction officers 1');">1-1');">10.
Count 2: Eighth Amendment excessive force
claim against Jones, Schoenveck, and Westerman for
handcuffing plaintiff after he received injuries to his arm.
Count 3: Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need claim against Jones,
Westerman, Schoenveck, John Does 1');">11');">1 and 1');">12, Wooley, McCaleb,
Caron, Gardner, Gee and McGee for failing to provide
plaintiff with adequate medical treatment following his
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
has listed Wexford Health Source, Inc.
(“Wexford”), as a defendant in the case caption,
but he does not describe how Wexford has violated his
constitutional rights. To state a claim against Wexford,
plaintiff must demonstrate that the alleged wrongdoers acted
pursuant to an unconstitutional policy or custom attributable
to Wexford. See Jackson v. Ill. Medi-Car, Inc., 300
F.3d 760, 766 n.6 (7th Cir. 2002); Gable v. City of
Chicago,1');">1');">296 F.3d 531');">1, 537 (7th Cir.2002). Here, not
only has plaintiff not alleged any policy or custom
attributable to Wexford, but he has not referenced Wexford in
the statement of claim at all. Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “‘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, 1');">1');">355 U.S. 41');">1, 47 (1');">1957)).
Merely invoking the name of a potential defendant by listing
him or her in ...