Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jackson v. Baldwin

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

January 15, 2020

LEON JACKSON, #R18100, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN BALDWIN, SHERRY BENTON, JOHN DOE Doctor, NURSE DOUTLY, JANE DOE Nurse Practitioner, JANE DOE 2 Doctor or Nurse Practitioner, KEVIN KINK, and IDOC, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          STACI M. YANDLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Leon Jackson, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) currently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. This 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. § 1915A(b).

         The Complaint

         Plaintiff makes the following allegations in his Complaint: On June 9, 2018, Plaintiff went to the healthcare unit at Lawrence Correctional Center (“Lawrence”). Nurse Doutly went from nurse to nurse showing them his medical records. After that, correctional officers walked by him making snide remarks. Later, John Doe Doctor told him he was sick and had HIV, maybe AIDS. He asked the doctor how long he had it and the doctor told him he had a lawsuit. Thereafter, Plaintiff requested his medical records on numerous occasions and was ignored. Lawrence precluded him from obtaining his medical records because there is evidence pertaining to his claim.

         Plaintiff requested medication for his condition from John Doe Doctor and Jane Doe Nurse Practitioner. He also asked them to place him in the infirmary. They denied both requests. Plaintiff filed a grievance and Warden Kink deemed it not an emergency. He filed subsequent grievances that were denied as untimely and duplicative. Plaintiff was told that John Baldwin was aware of the “incident.” He was told “several things” by Sherry Benton of the ARB.

         In February 2018, while incarcerated at Shawnee Correctional Center, Plaintiff confided in Jane Doe, who was a doctor or nurse practitioner, that he felt numerous symptoms. She gave him a pamphlet about his condition.

         In March or April 2018, Plaintiff took a “test” and it was negative. However, when he went to the healthcare unit, nurses and correctional officers acted weird and made stupid and loud comments. He felt something was wrong. A nurse once said his blood count was low, too low. Plaintiff believes the nurses and doctors were aware of his condition and neglected his health.

         Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court divides this action into the following Counts:

Count 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to a serious medical need claim against Kink, Nurse Doutly, John Doe (Doctor at Lawrence), and Jane Doe 1 (Nurse Practitioner at Lawrence) for denying Plaintiff medical treatment for HIV and/or AIDS.
Count 2: State law medical negligence claim against John Doe (Doctor at Lawrence) and Jane Doe (Nurse Practitioner at Lawrence) for denying Plaintiff medical treatment for HIV and/or AIDS.
Count 3: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to a serious medical need claim against Jane Doe 2 (Doctor or Nurse Practitioner at Shawnee) for denying Plaintiff medical treatment for HIV and/or AIDS.
Count 4: State law medical negligence claim against Jane Doe 2 (Doctor or Nurse Practitioner at Shawnee) for denying Plaintiff medical treatment for HIV and/or AIDS.

         The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. The designations do not constitute an opinion regarding their merit. Any other intended claim that has not been recognized by the Court is considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pleaded under the Twombly pleading standard.[1]

         Preliminary Dismissals

         Plaintiff cannot maintain his claim against IDOC because it is a state governmental agency that cannot be sued for money damages. See Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (“Neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons' under § 1983.”). Accordingly, IDOC will be dismissed with prejudice.

         Plaintiff fails to state a claim against John Baldwin and Sherry Benton. He alleges only that he was told Baldwin was aware of the “incident” and Benton told him “several things.” These vague allegations are insufficient to state a claim. Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009); see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (an action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.