Dorko v. Williams et al

Filing 21

STRICKEN - MERIT REVIEW OPINION: Plaintiff Willie Henderson has 21 days from the date of this Order to file an Amended Complaint that complies with the dictates of this Order. If Plaintiff fails to file an Amend ed Complaint that complies with the dictates of this Order, the Court will dismiss this case for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 4/4/2014. (MJ, ilcd) Modified on 4/4/2014 (MJ, ilcd).

E-FILED

Friday, 04 April, 2014 03:21:49 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
WILLIE HENDERSON,

)
)
)
)
) No.: 14-3027-SEM-TSH
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
DR. VALLABHANENI,
Defendant.

MERIT REVIEW OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff

Willie

Henderson,

proceeding

pro

se

from

his

detention in the Rushville Treatment and Detention Center
(“Rushville”), seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis on his claims
against Defendant Dr. Vallabhaneni under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The “privilege to proceed without posting security for costs and
fees is reserved to the many truly impoverished litigants who,
within the District Court’s sound discretion, would remain without
legal remedy if such privilege were not afforded to them.” Brewster
v. North Am. Van Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 1972).
Additionally, a court must dismiss cases proceeding in forma
1

pauperis “at any time” if the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim, even if part of the filing fee has been paid. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(d)(2). Accordingly, this Court grants leave to proceed in forma
pauperis only if the complaint states a federal claim.
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, 651 (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. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)
(internal quotation omitted).
Henderson alleges that he was a civilly committed person from
2000 through 2011 at Rushville and that, during this time period,
he received and took psychotropic medication. In late 2011, Dr.
Tim Walla removed Henderson from all psychotropic medication.
In May 2013, Henderson received a conditional release hearing
in a state court in Chicago, Illinois. That state court released
Henderson from Rushville on the condition that he be placed back
on psychotropic medication.

2

Dr. Vallabhaneni prescribed Henderson to take Lamictal as
ordered by the state court. Henderson alleges that Dr.
Vallabhaneni prescribed Lamictal without examining him first.
Henderson further alleges that he suffered severe side effects from
Lamictal and that these side effects resulted in his being placed
back in detention at Rushville. Henderson asserts that Dr.
Vallbhaneni’s actions deprived him of his due process rights,
constituted deliberate indifference in violation of his Eighth
Amendment rights, and constituted medical malpractice.
Henderson does not specify whether he is alleging that Dr.
Vallabhaneni deprived him of his substantive or procedural due
process rights, but the failure to do so is of no consequence.
Henderson received the procedural due process to which he was
entitled during his state court conditional release hearing, and the
state court ordered that he be placed on psychotropic medication in
order to be conditionally released. Therefore, Henderson received
the due process to which he was entitled.
Moreover, Henderson does not allege that Dr. Vallabhaneni
possessed the authority to re-institute him, thereby depriving him
of his liberty interests under the Fourteenth Amendment.
3

Accordingly, the Court finds that Henderson’s due process claim
fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.
Seibert v. Alt, 2002 WL 370019, * 1 (7th Cir. Mar. 4, 2002)(“While
involuntarily-committed individuals retain certain liberty rights,
decisions made by professionals regarding conditions of
confinement are presumptively correct.”); Williams v. Nelson, 398 F.
Supp. 2d 977, (W.D. Wis. 2005)(finding no due process violation
where the decisions regarding a detainee’s treatment were not made
by unqualified individuals and his treatment was not outside the
bounds of professional judgment).
The Court also finds that Henderson’s deliberate indifference
claim fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be
granted. The deliberate indifference standard requires a plaintiff to
clear a high threshold in order to maintain a claim for cruel and
unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Dunigan ex rel.
Nyman v. Winnebago County, 165 F.3d 587, 590 (7th Cir. 1999). “In
order to prevail on a deliberate indifference claim, a plaintiff must
show (1) that his condition was ‘objectively, sufficiently serious’ and
(2) that the ‘[] officials acted with a sufficiently culpable state of
mind.” Lee v. Young, 533 F.3d 505, 509 (7th Cir. 2008)(quoting
4

Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 652 (7th Cir. 2005)); Duckworth v.
Ahmad, 532 F.3d 675, 679 (7th Cir. 2008)(same).
“With respect to the culpable state of mind, negligence or even
gross negligence is not enough; the conduct must be reckless in the
criminal sense.” Id.; Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 836-37
(1994)(“We hold . . . that [an] official cannot be found liable under
the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of
confinement unless 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 harm exists, and he must also draw the
inference.”). In other words,
[d]eliberate indifference is not medical malpractice; the
Eighth Amendment does not codify common law torts.
And although deliberate means more than negligent, it is
something less than purposeful. The point between these
two poles lies where the official knows of and disregards
an excessive risk to inmate health or safety or where the
official is both aware of facts from which the inference
could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm
exists, and he . . . draw the inference. A jury can infer
deliberate indifference on the basis of a physician’s
treatment decision when the decision is so far afield of
accepted professional standards as to raise the inference
that it was not actually based on a medical judgment.
5

Duckworth, 532 F.3d at 679 (internal quotations and citations
omitted).
Here, Dr. Vallabhaneni prescribed the psychotropic drug
Lamictal pursuant to a state court order. Henderson has not
alleged that Lamictal is not a proper drug used to treat someone
with his condition or that it was contrary to the state court judge’s
order. Instead, Henderson alleges that the drug’s side effects were
such that it led him to be re-instituted at Rushville.
Henderson’s allegations may constitute medical malpractice in
that Dr. Vallabhaneni did not examine Henderson or check his
medical records before prescribing Lamictal to him, but Dr.
Vallabhaneni’s actions do not constitute criminal recklessness. Dr.
Vallabhaneni possessed a court order directing that Henderson
receive psychotropic medication, and Lamictal is a valid
psychotropic medication for someone with Henderson’s issues.
The Court cannot say at this point, however, that any
amendment to Henderson’s Complaint would be futile. Fed. R. Civ.
Pro. 15. Accordingly, the Court will give Henderson 21 days from
the date of this Order within which to file an Amended Complaint.
If he chooses to file an Amended Complaint, Henderson should, in a
6

short, plain statement, explain what actions Dr. Vallabhaneni took
or did not take that rise to the level of criminal negligence sufficient
to state a cause of action for deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
Plaintiff Willie Henderson has 21 days from the date of
this Order to file an Amended Complaint that complies with
the dictates of this Order. If Plaintiff fails to file an Amended
Complaint that complies with the dictates of this Order, the
Court will dismiss this case for failure to state a cause of action
upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

ENTER: April 4, 2014
FOR THE COURT:

s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7