Moses v. Shah et al
Filing
8
OPINION (See Written Opinion): 1. Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds that Plaintiff states an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Dr. Shah for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious need for a low bunk permit and to the medical conditions Plaintiff suffered as a result of his fall from the top bunk. Any other claims shall not be included in the case, except in the Court's discretion on motion by a party for good ca use shown or pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. 2. The merit review hearing set for November 7, 2011, is cancelled as unnecessary. The clerk is directed to phone Plaintiff to advise him of the cancellation. 3. Defendants Fuqua, Taylo r, McKee, Chute, Goins, and Boeding are dismissed for failure to state a claim against them. 4. This case is referred to the Magistrate Judge for entry of a Scheduling Order directing service and setting a Rule 16 conference date. A copy of this Op inion shall be served with the Complaint and Scheduling Order. 5.Defendants shall file an answer within the time prescribed by Local Rule. A motion to dismiss is not an answer. The answer should include all defenses appropriate under the Federal Rules. The answer and subsequent pleadings shall be to the issues and claims stated in this Opinion. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 11/02/2011. (VM, ilcd)
E-FILED
Wednesday, 02 November, 2011 11:39:39 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
JOE N. MOSES
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. VIPIN SHAH, et al.,
Defendants.
11-CV-3370
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff filed this action while incarcerated in Western Illinois Correctional
Center. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A requires the Court to conduct a “merit review” of a
Complaint “in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or
officer.” Plaintiff was released after filing this Complaint, but § 1915A arguably
still applies because he filed the case when he was a prisoner. See Johnson v. Hill,
965 F.Supp. 1487 (E.D. Va. 1997)(§1915A applied to action brought by plaintiff
while in prison, even though plaintiff was released before screening).
LEGAL STANDARD
The Court is required by § 1915A to review a Complaint filed by a prisoner
against a governmental entity or officer and, through such process, to identify
1
cognizable claims, dismissing any claim that is “frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” A hearing is held if necessary to
assist the Court in this review, but, in this case, the Court concludes that no hearing
is necessary. The Complaint and its attachments are clear enough on their own for
this Court to perform its merit review of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
The review standard under § 1915A is the same as the notice pleading
standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Zimmerman v. Tribble,
226 F.3d 568, 571 (7th Cir. 2000). To state a claim, the allegations must set forth a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Factual allegations must give enough detail to give
“‘fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” EEOC
v. Concentra Health Serv., Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir. 2007), quoting Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)(add’l citation omitted). The
factual “allegations must plausibly suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief,
raising that possibility above a ‘speculative level.’” Id., quoting Bell Atlantic, 550
U.S. at 555. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged . . . . Threadbare recitals of the elements of a
cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
2
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009), citing Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at
555-56. However, pro se pleadings are liberally construed when applying this
standard. Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 546 (7th Cir. 2009).
ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered serious injuries to his shoulder and knee
prior to his incarceration. As a result, maneuvering himself to and from the top
bunk in a prison cell is allegedly difficult and dangerous. A low bunk permit was
issued to him in the Lake County Jail and again when he was transferred to the
IDOC’s Stateville prison. However, when Plaintiff was transferred to Western
Illinois Correctional Center Dr. Shah refused to issue a low bunk permit. Dr. Shah
allegedly told Plaintiff that he would have to be on psychiatric medicine to warrant
a low bunk permit. Plaintiff was thus assigned to the top bunk, from which he fell
in July and August, 2010, narrowly avoiding serious injuries. Dr. Shah still
refused to issue a low bunk permit. On October 20, 2010, Plaintiff fell again from
the top bunk, knocking himself unconscious. He sustained serious injuries that
required several days of hospitalization and one month in the prison’s health care
unit. At the time he filed his Complaint, Plaintiff was allegedly experiencing
frequent headaches, painful head pressure and loss of vision.
ANALYSIS
3
Deliberate indifference to a serious medical need violates a prisoner's right
under the Eighth Amendment to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
Hayes v. Snyder, 546 F.3d 516, 522 (7th Cir. 2008). The medical need must be
objectively serious, meaning “‘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.’” Id., quoting Greeno v. Daley,
414 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2005). Deliberate indifference does not encompass
negligence or even gross negligence. McGowan v. Hulick, 612 F.3d 636, 640 (7th
Cir. 2010). Deliberate indifference requires personal knowledge of an inmate’s
serious medical need and an intentional or reckless disregard of that need. Id.;
Hayes, 546 F.3d at 524.
The Court concludes that Plaintiff states an arguable Eighth Amendment
claim against Dr. Shah for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical
need for a low bunk, and for deliberate indifference to the symptoms Plaintiff
experienced when he returned from the hospital. However, no inference of
deliberate indifference arises against the rest of the defendants. The nurse and the
health care unit administrator may have medical training but they do not have the
authority to override Dr. Shah’s treatment decisions. The administrative
defendants have no medical training and are thus entitled to rely on the medical
4
professionals. Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 656 (7th Cir. 2005)(“‘If a prisoner is
under the care of medical experts... a nonmedical prison official will generally be
justified in believing that the prisoner is in capable hands.’”)(quoted cite omitted).
Nor can the administrators be held liable simply because they are in charge. See
Chavez v. Illinois State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 651 (7th Cir. 2001)(no respondeat
superior liability under § 1983).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
the Court finds that Plaintiff states an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant
Dr. Shah for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious need for a low bunk
permit and to the medical conditions Plaintiff suffered as a result of his fall from
the top bunk. Any other claims shall not be included in the case, except in the
Court’s discretion on motion by a party for good cause shown or pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
2. The merit review hearing set for November 7, 2011, is cancelled as
unnecessary. The clerk is directed to phone Plaintiff to advise him of the
cancellation.
3. Defendants Fuqua, Taylor, McKee, Chute, Goins, and Boeding are
dismissed for failure to state a claim against them.
5
4.
This case is referred to the Magistrate Judge for entry of a Scheduling
Order directing service and setting a Rule 16 conference date. A copy of this
Opinion shall be served with the Complaint and Scheduling Order.
5.
Defendants shall file an answer within the time prescribed by Local
Rule. A motion to dismiss is not an answer. The answer should include all
defenses appropriate under the Federal Rules. The answer and subsequent
pleadings shall be to the issues and claims stated in this Opinion.
ENTERED: November 2, 2011
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?