United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
CAREY B. DONALD, #M33774, Plaintiff,
WARDEN, MEDICAL DIRECTOR, and CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Carey B. Donald, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional
Center, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights.
Plaintiff asserts a claim for deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need and seeks monetary damages. (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 includes a one paragraph statement of claim.
Plaintiff alleges he has a right to weekly Procrit injections
prescribed for him, but the injections have not been
provided. (Doc. 1, p. 17). Based on the exhibits attached to
the Complaint, it appears that some weekly shots were not
given as prescribed. (Id., p. 15). Plaintiff has
not, however, alleged what role the Warden, Medical Director,
or Chief Administrative Officer played in his medical care.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, the Complaint must
include a short, plain statement of the case against each
individual. Merely naming a party in the caption of a
Complaint is not enough to state a claim against him.
Collins v. Kibort, 143 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir.
1998). In other words, Plaintiffs are required to associate
specific defendants with specific claims, so that defendants
are put on notice of the claims brought against them and so
they can properly answer the Complaint. Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Fed.R.Civ.P.
because Plaintiff failed to allege specific acts of
wrongdoing by the Warden, Medical Director, and CAO, the
personal involvement requirement necessary for Section 1983
liability is not met. Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d
555, 561 (7th Cir. 1995). They cannot be held liable based
solely on their positions as administrators as the doctrine
of respondeat superior does not apply to section
1983 actions. Chavez v. Illinois State Police, 251
F.3d 612, 651 (2001); Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266
F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the Complaint
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and
will be DISMISSED without prejudice.
for Recruitment of Counsel
litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to
counsel. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 649 (7th Cir.
2007). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), however, the Court
has discretion to recruit counsel to represent indigent
litigants in appropriate cases. Johnson v. Doughty,
433 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir. 2006). When deciding whether to
recruit counsel for an indigent litigant, the Court must
consider (1) whether the indigent plaintiff has made
reasonable attempts to secure counsel on his own, and, if so,
(2) whether the difficulty of the case exceeds the
plaintiff's capacity as a layperson to coherently present
it. Navejar v. Iyiola, 718 F.3d 692, 696 (7th Cir.
2013) (citing Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 654).
discloses no efforts to locate counsel on his own and,
therefore, his request for recruitment of counsel is
premature. Plaintiff may renew his request for counsel at any
time during the pending action, after first attempting to
locate counsel on his own. If Plaintiff does renew his
request, he should give the Court rejection letters from at
least three attorneys to prove that he has made reasonable
efforts to obtain counsel on his own. For the reasons stated,
the Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 3) is
DENIED without prejudice.
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's Motion for
Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 3) is DENIED
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is
GRANTED leave to file a First Amended
Complaint on or before December 5, 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.
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. § 1915(g).
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 ...