Douglas v. Snieder et al

Filing 8

MERIT REVIEW OPINION - Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 11/21/2016. The plaintiff's complaint is hereby dismissed with leave to plead over. The plaintiff may file an amended complaint, within sixty (60) days of this order, that identifies t he jail officials responsible for the denial of medical treatment and states, with specificity, what adverse effects plaintiff suffered as a result of the delay in treatment, In short, plead more facts. If the plaintiff fails to file an amended co mplaint or follow the court's specific instructions, as outlined in this order, his case may be dismissed. The clerk is directed to provide the plaintiff with a blank complaint form to assist him. The plaintiff must keep the Clerk informed, in writing, of plaintiff's current address and, if released from detention, a current phone number. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this case, with prejudice. (LN, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 21 November, 2016 10:31:18 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
AVERS DOUGLAS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THOMAS SNIEDER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

16-CV-2288

MERIT REVIEW ORDER
This cause is before the court for a merit review of the plaintiff's claims. The
court is required by 28 U.S.C. §1915A to “screen” the plaintiff’s complaint, and through
such process to identify and dismiss any legally insufficient claim, or the entire action if
warranted. A claim is legally insufficient if it “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief.”
In reviewing the complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as true,
liberally construing them in the 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 plausible on its face.” Alexander v.
U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(citation omitted). The court has reviewed the
complaint and has held a merit review hearing to give the plaintiff a chance to
personally explain his claims.
The plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983
claiming his constitutional rights were violated while he was a pretrial detainee at the
Macon County Jail. Since the plaintiff was a pretrial detainee, his constitutional rights
are derived from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See e.g.,
Kingsley v. Hendrickson, ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2475 (2015); Budd v. Motley, 711
F.3d 840, 842 (7th Cir. 2013). However, the Seventh Circuit has “found it convenient
and entirely appropriate to apply the same standard to claims arising under the
Fourteenth Amendment (detainees) and Eighth Amendment (convicted prisoners)
without differentiation.’ ” Board v. Farnham, 394 F.3d 469, 478 (7th Cir. 2005) quoting
Henderson v. Sheahan, 196 F.3d 839, 845 n.2 (7th Cir. 1999).
The plaintiff alleges he was denied medical treatment for four (4) days following
a bump he discovered in his armpit that later turned out to be infected with Methicillin1

resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The plaintiff does not allege the adverse
effects he suffered as a result. The plaintiff also alleges that jail officials at the Macon
County Jail were negligent in preventing the spread of MRSA from another inmate.
The Court interprets plaintiff’s complaint as stating a claim for deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need for the alleged delay in treating his infection.
However, the plaintiff has failed to identify the jail officials responsible for the denial of
medical treatment, and what adverse effects he suffered as a result of the delay in
treatment.
The Macon County Sheriff and Macon County Sheriff’s Department cannot be
held constitutionally liable on the theory of respondeat superior. Vance v. Peters, 97
F.3d 987, 991 (7th Cir. 1996). The plaintiff, however, does not state a claim for the alleged
negligence in preventing the spread of MRSA. McGee v. Adams, 721 F.3d 474, 481 (7th
Cir. 2013)(“Even gross negligence is insufficient to impose constitutional liability.”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

The plaintiff’s complaint is hereby dismissed with leave to plead over.
The plaintiff may file an amended complaint, within sixty (60) days of this
order, that identifies the jail officials responsible for the denial of medical
treatment and states, with specificity, what adverse effects plaintiff
suffered as a result of the delay in treatment, In short, plead more facts.
If the plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or follow the court’s
specific instructions, as outlined in this order, his case may be dismissed.

2.

The clerk is directed to provide the plaintiff with a blank complaint form
to assist him.

3.

The plaintiff must keep the Clerk informed, in writing, of plaintiff’s
current address and, if released from detention, a current phone number.
Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this case, with prejudice.
ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2016.
/s/ Harold A. Baker
____________________________________________
HAROLD A. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2