United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Varron Wilson, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) who is currently
incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center
(“Menard”), brings this civil action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his constitutional
rights. Wilson claims that Defendants were deliberately
indifferent to a serious medical need in failing to provide
treatment for a spider bite. He seeks monetary damages.
Complaint is now before the Court for preliminary review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, any
portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious,
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
requests 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). The Court must also consider whether any
claims are improperly joined and subject to severance or
dismissal. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d
605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
makes the following allegations in the Complaint: In February
2018, he was bitten by a spider on his left side. (Doc. 1, p.
5). He put in two request slips to sick call regarding the
bite and informed nurses on several occasions that the bite
wound was becoming worse and spreading. After two weeks,
Nurse Molly came to see him, but he still did not see a nurse
practitioner until two days later. By this time, he was in so
much pain that it was hard to move his upper body, and he had
multiple boils. (Id. at pp. 5-6). He was sent to the
healthcare unit where he was given an IV, but staff could not
figure out what he had. (Id. at p. 6).
names Wexford Health Services (“Wexford”) in the
case caption, but he does not assert any allegations against
Wexford in the body of the Complaint. Plaintiffs are required
to associate specific defendants with specific claims, so
that defendants are put on notice of the claims brought
against them and can properly answer the complaint. See
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007); Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Where a plaintiff has not
included a defendant in his statement of the claim, the
defendant cannot be said to be adequately put on notice of
which claims in the complaint, if any, are directed against
him or her. Merely invoking the name of a potential defendant
is not sufficient to state a claim against that individual.
See Collins v. Kibort, 143 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir.
1998). Additionally, Wexford “cannot be held liable
under § 1983 unless the constitutional violation was
caused by an unconstitutional policy or custom of the
corporation itself.” Shields v. Ill. Dep't of
Corr., 746 F.3d 782, 789 (7th Cir. 2014). Accordingly,
Wexford will be dismissed from this action without prejudice.
also is listed as a defendant and will be dismissed with
prejudice. Menard, which is a division of IDOC, is not a
“person” within the meaning of the Civil Rights
Act and so it cannot be sued pursuant to Section 1983.
Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S.
58, 71 (1989).
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to designate the claims in this case into the
Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against
Nurse Molly for deliberate indifference to Wilson's
serious medical need of treatment for his spider bite.
parties and the Court will use this designation in all future
pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial
officer of this Court. Any other claim that is mentioned in
the Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be
considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled
under the Twombly pleading standard.
Eighth Amendment “imposes a duty on government
officials to provide medical care to prisoners.”
Townsend v. Cooper, 759 F.3d 678, 689 (7th Cir.
2014) (citing Estelle v. Gamble,429 U.S. 97, 104-05
(1976)). Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment when
they respond to a prisoner's serious medical needs with
deliberate indifference. Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d
742, 750 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S.
at 104). For screening purposes, Wilson's spider bite,
which resulted in boils, irritation, and pain, will be
considered a ...