United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
John Young, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections currently incarcerated at Hill Correctional
Center, brings this action for alleged deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff asserts claims related to medical care while he was
incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center. (Doc. 1).
case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the
Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the
Court to screen prisoner Complaints to filter out
nonmeritorious claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion
of the Complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails
to state a claim for relief, or requests money damages from
an immune defendant must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. §
Complaint must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
by providing “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The purpose of the Rule is to
“give defendants fair notice of the claims against them
and the grounds for supporting the claims.” Stanard
v. Nygren, 658 F.3d 792, 797 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing
Killingsworth v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A., 507 F.3d 614,
618 (7th Cir. 2007); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Additionally, “[a] pleading
that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a demand
for the relief sought, which may include relief in the
alternative or different types of relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(3). Further, to state a claim, a plaintiff must describe
what each defendant did or failed to do that violated his
constitutional rights. Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d
555, 561 (7th Cir. 1995); Pepper v. Village of Oak
Park, 430 F.3d 805, 810 (7th Cir. 2005) (28 U.S.C.
§ 1983 creates a cause of action based on personal
liability and predicated upon fault).
Complaint fails to state a claim for relief. The statement of
claim refers to encounters for medical care with med-tech
Susan, med-tech Nicole, med-tech Tonya, the cellhouse
med-tech, the doctor, and Dr. Siddiqui. (Doc. 1, p. 6). The
defendants named in the case caption include two Jane Does
and Dr. Siddiqui. (Id., p. 1). It is unclear which
of the med-techs are intended as the two Jane Doe defendants.
Additionally, while it appears Plaintiff is attempting to
make an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim, he
fails to state how Dr. Siddiqui was deliberately indifferent
to a serious medical need. See Rasho v. Elyea, 856
F.3d 469, 475-76 (7th Cir. 2017) (an Eighth Amendment claim
for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need
requires a plaintiff to show that (1) he suffered from an
objectively serious medical condition; and (2) the defendant
was deliberately indifferent to a risk of serious harm from
that condition). Plaintiff describes medical care provided by
Dr. Siddiqui on two occasions but does not allege any
deficiencies in the care, that any care was improper, or that
any care was denied. (Id., p. 6).
the Complaint does not include a demand for relief. Plaintiff
used the civil rights complaint form approved for use in this
judicial district. The request for relief section of the
Complaint (Doc. 1, p. 7) is blank and there is not a demand
for relief elsewhere in the Complaint.
stated reasons, the Complaint will be dismissed without
prejudice. Plaintiff will be granted leave to file a First
IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter does not survive
28 U.S.C. § 1915A review, and the Complaint is
DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is
GRANTED leave to file a First Amended
Complaint on or before November 28, 2019. Should Plaintiff
decide to file 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. A successful complaint generally alleges “the
who, what, when, where, and how ....” DiLeo v.
Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d 624, 627 (7th Cir. 1990).
Plaintiff should attempt to include the relevant facts of his
case in chronological order, inserting each defendant's
name where necessary to identify the actors and each
defendant's actions. The First Amended Complaint should
comply with Rule 8 and Twombly pleading standards.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to file
his First Amended Complaint within the allotted time or
consistent with the instructions set forth in this Order, the
entire case shall be dismissed with prejudice for failure to
comply with a court order and/or for failure to prosecute his
claims. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Ladien v. Astrachan, 128
F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Johnson v. Kamminga, 34
F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The
dismissal shall count as one of Plaintiff's three
allotted “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. §
amended complaint supersedes and replaces the original
complaint, rendering the original complaint void. See
Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am., 354 F.3d
632, 638 n. 1 (7th Cir. 2004). The Court will not accept
piecemeal amendments to the original Complaint. Thus, the
First Amended Complaint must stand on its own, without
reference to any previous pleading, and Plaintiff must
re-file any relevant exhibits he wishes the Court to
consider. The First Amended Complaint is subject to review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Plaintiff decides to file a First Amended Complaint, it is
strongly recommended that he use the civil rights complaint
form designed for use in this District. He should label the
form, “First Amended Complaint, ” and he should
use the case number for this action (No. 19-cv-00868-JPG). To
enable Plaintiff to comply ...