Moore v. Piatt County Department of Corrections et al

Filing 8

MERIT REVIEW ORDER entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 9/26/2017. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:1) The Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. This case is closed. All pending motions are denied as moot. ( 7 , status) 2) If the Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he may file a notice of appeal with this court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis MUST set forth the issues the Plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If the Plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $505 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER.(SAG, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 26 September, 2017 09:04:18 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LAVONTE LAMAR MOORE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PIAT COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, et.al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 17-2078

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.” 28 U.S.C. §1915A.
Plaintiff says his constitutional rights were violated by the Piatt County
Department of Corrections, Piatt County Jail Superintended Bell, Piatt County Jail
Sergeant Donahue, and the Cook County Department of Corrections. Plaintiff says he
was transferred from the Cook County Jail to the Piatt County Jail “against my will.”
(Comp., p. 5). On July 30, 2015, Plaintiff ate applesauce in the Piatt County Jail which
had glass in it. “I cut my gums and possibly swallowed glass.” (Comp., p. 5). Plaintiff
says Defendants Bell and Donahue are responsible for overseeing and preparing food
trays.

1

Plaintiff informed Defendant Bell about the glass and asked for medical
attention. Instead, another officer took Plaintiff’s vital signs. When Plaintiff asked to
see a doctor, he was told the doctor said Plaintiff would be fine because any glass
would pass through his system.
Plaintiff had blood in his stool on July 30, 2015 and August 2, 2015, but he did not
see a nurse until August 3, 2015. It is unclear if Plaintiff told the nurse about the blood
in his stool, but the nurse again told Plaintiff the glass would pass through his system
and he would be fine. Plaintiff is requesting two million dollars in unspecified
damages.
There are several problems with Plaintiff’s complaint. First, Plaintiff cannot
proceed with his claims against either the Piatt County or Cook County Correctional
Facilities because neither is a legal entity and thus not a proper defendant in a lawsuit
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Powell v Cook County Jail, 814 F.Supp 757, 758 (N.D. Ill.
1993)(jail not a proper §1983 defendant).
Second, Plaintiff’s claim that he did not want to be transferred to Piatt County,
by itself, does not state a constitutional violation.
Third, Plaintiff has not stated a claim against either Defendant Bell or Donahue
based on food preparation. Plaintiff has not explained how either Defendant is
personally involved in food preparation, and neither Defendant can be found liable
simply because he is a supervisor. See Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir.
2001)(“The doctrine of respondeat superior (supervisor liablilty) does not apply to § 1983
actions..”).
2

Even if Plaintiff could demonstrate the Defendants were directly involved in
preparing his food, there is no inference that the glass was intentionally placed in his
food. Furthermore, the one incident alleged does not rise to the level of a constitutional
violation. “[I]n a large food operation as the prison dietary, oversights such as the
presence of crusted food or cigarette ashes on dining room fixtures and utensils on
occasion, or even ‘foreign objects’ in the food can be expected.” Hadley v. Dobucki, 1995
WL 364225, at *3 (7th Cir. 1995); Jackson v. Lang, 2010 WL 3210762, at *1 (N.D.Ill. Aug.10,
2010)( “one incident of finding rodent parts in a meal, though most unfortunate, does
not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.”); George v. King, 837 F.2d 705, 707 (7th
Cir.1988) (one incident of food poisoning in prison does not state a § 1983 claim of a
constitutional violation); McRoy v. Sheahan, No. 03 C 4718, 2004 WL 1375527, *3 (N.D.Ill.
Jun.17, 2004)(“ Even a dead mouse in an inmate's meal is only a minimal deprivation
without a showing of injury.); Wassil v. Casto, 2014 WL 988479, at *11 (S.D.W.Va.,2014)(“
while the presence of a dead rodent in Plaintiffs' food is revolting, this incident does not
objectively constitute a denial of the “minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.”).
Plaintiff’s final claim alleges the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical condition. To demonstrate an Eighth Amendment violation, Plaintiff
must show he suffered from a serious medical condition and the named Defendant was
deliberately indifferent to that condition. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976);
Hayes v. Snyder, 546 F.3d 516, 522 (7th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff reports he had a cut on his
gums and blood in his stool on two occasions. However, Plaintiff reports no other

3

symptoms or medical problems in the year and a half between the incident and filing
his complaint.
Apparently a doctor was consulted when Plaintiff reported glass in his food, but
Plaintiff did not see a nurse until four days later. Both informed Plaintiff he would be
fine and the glass would pass through his system.
Plaintiff has not alleged he suffered from a serious medical condition. “An
objectively serious medical need is one that has been diagnosed by a physician as
mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily
recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention.” Thomas v. Cook Cty. Sheriff's Dep't, 604
F.3d 293, 301 (7th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations omitted). Plaintiff initially reported he
thought he had swallowed glass and had a cut to his gums. Plaintiff does not allege the
cut itself required medical attention, and he was told the glass would pass through his
system. See Pinkston v. Madry, 440 F.3d 879, 891 (7th Cir. 2006)(split lip and swollen
cheek not serious medical condition); Davis v. Jones, 936 F.2d 971, 972-73 (7th Cir. 1991)
(scraped elbow and small cut to temple not serious medical conditions);.Mock v. Castro,
2016 WL 7324563, at *5 (N.D.Ill. Dec. 16, 2016)(“courts have held that injuries like a split
lip and a swollen cheek do not present an objectively serious medical need, and this
suggests that in the present case, a state actor would not reasonably think (plaintiff’s)
presentation indicated a need for medical care.”).
Plaintiff later noticed blood in his stool, but he admits he met with a nurse. She
agreed with the doctor that if Plaintiff had swallowed glass, it would pass through his
system and Plaintiff would be okay. The Court also notes an “inmate who claims that a
4

delay in medical treatment rose to a constitutional violation must place verifying
medical evidence in the record to establish the detrimental effect of delay in medical
treatment to succeed.” Langston v Peters, 100 F.3d 1235, 1240 (7th Cir. 1996). However,
Plaintiff admits no further medical problems beyond his fear that he might swallow
glass again. As advised by medical staff, if he had swallowed glass, it passed through
his system without further incident.
Based on the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint, he has not articulated a violation
of his constitutional rights.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) The Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. This case is closed. All
pending motions are denied as moot. [7, status]
2) If the Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he may file a notice of appeal
with this court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). A
motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis MUST set forth the issues the Plaintiff
plans to present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If the Plaintiff does
choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $505 appellate filing fee irrespective of
the outcome of the appeal.
Entered this 26th day of September, 2017.

s/ James E. Shadid
_________________________________________
JAMES E. SHADID
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5