Spiller v. King et al

Filing 6

MERIT REVIEW OPINION: Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of this order to file an amended complaint with respect to defendants Bridgett and Foley. The Clerk is directed to dismiss Defendants King and McCoy for failure to state a claim. (SEE WRITTEN OPINION) Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 4/23/2015. (GL, ilcd)

E-FILED

Thursday, 23 April, 2015 09:33:55 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EDWARD SPILLER,

v.
JODY KING, et al.

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants. )

15-1016

MERIT REVIEW OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and incarcerated at Peoria County
Jail, filed the present lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
an Eighth Amendment violation for deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need.
The case is before the Court for a merit review pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. In reviewing the Complaint, the Court accepts the
factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in Plaintiff's
favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013).
However, conclusory statements and labels are insufficient.
Enough facts must be provided to "'state a claim for relief that is

Page 1 of 6

plausible on its face.'" Alexander v. U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th
Cir. 2013)(quoted cite omitted).
ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff is an inmate at Peoria County Jail. Plaintiff alleges
that Defendant Bridgett refused to provide medical care for some
type of wound/boil on Plaintiff’s leg and denied Plaintiff’s request
for band-aids on December 8, 2014. Plaintiff alleges he was denied
medical care for seven (7) consecutive days thereafter, resulting in
an infection on Plaintiff’s leg and 12 stitches. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant King refused to call a lieutenant to whom Plaintiff could
speak about the original incident, Defendant Foley failed to respond
to Plaintiff’s grievances about the matter, and Defendant McCoy,
the warden, appears to not care about this incident.
Analysis
To prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim for inadequate
medical care, Plaintiff must show that prison officials acted with
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). Deliberate indifference is more than
negligence, but does not require the plaintiff to show that the
defendants intended to cause harm. Mayoral, 245 F.3d at 938.
Page 2 of 6

Liability attaches under the Eighth Amendment when “the official
knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or
safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the
inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm
exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
At this point, Plaintiff has not alleged enough facts for the
Court to determine whether Plaintiff had a serious medical need. A
life-threatening medical condition is not required, but the Court
must be able to ascertain whether “the failure to treat a prisoner's
condition could result in further significant injury or the
unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Gutierrez v. Peters,
111 F.3d 1364, 1373 (7th Cir.1997) (citation omitted). It appears
from the Complaint that once Plaintiff’s wound became infected, he
was provided prompt medical care. The Complaint, though,
contains little information regarding the events that led up to the
infection.
Even if Plaintiff could show a serious medical need at this
point, Plaintiff has not shown how the defendants were deliberately
indifferent to that need. Plaintiff does not identify which individuals
Page 3 of 6

denied him medical care over that seven (7) day period, nor does
Plaintiff describe what type of medical treatment he was receiving
before Defendant Bridgett’s alleged denial of treatment.
Defendants King and McCoy should be dismissed at this stage
in the proceedings as they cannot be held liable under section 1983
for the actions alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and any amendment
would be futile. Defendant King is a correctional officer and is
permitted to rely upon the judgment of the medical staff at the jail
regarding Plaintiff’s treatment. E.g. Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d
435, 440 (7th Cir. 2010) (nonmedical prison officials “are entitled to
defer to the judgment of jail health professionals” (citations
omitted)). Defendant McCoy played no role in Plaintiff’s treatment
and cannot be held liable solely based upon his position at the jail.
See Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987, 991 (7th Cir. 1996) (“Section 1983
creates a cause of action based on personal liability and predicated
upon fault; thus, liability does not attach unless the individual
defendant cause or participated in a constitutional deprivation.”
(citations omitted)).
Defendant Foley, the head nurse at the jail, may have
participated in the constitutional deprivations alleged by the
Page 4 of 6

Plaintiff and will therefore remain a defendant at this time.
However, as currently alleged, Defendant Foley cannot be held
liable solely for the denial of Plaintiff’s medical grievance. George v.
Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Ruling against a prisoner
on an administrative complaint does not cause or contribute to the
violation.”).
Therefore, Plaintiff is given leave to file an amended complaint
containing additional facts related to any serious medical need he
suffered and how prison officials responded at the jail. If the
Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he should include
the following information: whether any medical procedures were
performed on his boil/wound, and, if so, what type of treatment he
received afterwards; a description of the medical treatment he was
receiving prior to December 8, 2014 for his boil/wound; the
interactions he had with jail medical staff during the seven (7) days
in which he alleges he did not receive treatment; and, what
treatment he was requesting during that period. The Court reminds
the Plaintiff that piecemeal amendments are not allowed. In other
words, if Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he should
draft a new complaint that includes all the information in the
Page 5 of 6

original complaint and the additional information requested by the
Court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1)

Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a

claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of this order to file an
amended complaint with respect to defendants Bridgett and Foley.
Failure to file an amended complaint will result in the dismissal of
this case, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff's
amended complaint will replace Plaintiff's original complaint in its
entirety. Accordingly, the amended complaint must contain all
allegations against all Defendants. Piecemeal amendments are not
accepted.
2)

The Clerk is directed to dismiss Defendants King and

McCoy for failure to state a claim.
ENTERED: April 23, 2015.
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 6 of 6