Rodriguez-Santi v. Dorethy et al

Filing 13

MERIT REVIEW ORDER entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 9/22/2017. IT IS 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 fro m the entry of this order to file an amended complaint. 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) Plaintiff's 5 motion for counsel is MOOT, with leave to reassert if he files an amended complaint. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER.(SAG, ilcd)

E-FILED

Friday, 22 September, 2017 01:18:24 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CARLOS RODRIGUEZ-SANTI,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
STEPHANIE DORETHY, et al.,
Defendants.

No.: 17-cv-4086-JBM

MERIT REVIEW ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, pursues a § 1983 action for conspiracy, Eighth Amendment
inhumane conditions of confinement, and state law claims of battery and intentional infliction of
emotional distress at the Henry Hill Correctional Center (“Hill”). He also asserts that IDOC has
“municipal liability” due to the policies and practices it has promulgated.
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, 649-51 (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)(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). While the pleading standard does not
require “detailed factual allegations”, it requires “more than an unadorned, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Wilson v. Ryker, 451 Fed. Appx. 588, 589 (7th Cir. 2011)
quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Plaintiff alleges a variety of claims arising out of his January 26, 2017, 5:30 a.m., fall at
Hill. On the date in question, Plaintiff was on his way back from the chow hall when he slipped
on ice on the sidewalk. Plaintiff alleges serious injury from hitting the back of his head, arm and

1

side. Plaintiff was returned to his cell and alleges that he didn’t realize how severe his injuries
were until later that day. When he appeared in sick call to pick up his medications, the nursing
staff took him to the health care unit and x-rays were taken.
Plaintiff alleges that he is 75 years old, has a pacemaker to correct his irregular heart
rhythm and was subjected to unconstitutionally unsafe conditions. Plaintiff asserts that Warden
Dorethy, and the Assistant Warden of Operations, Assistant Warden of Programs, Shift
Commander, and Lieutenant, (none of whom are identified by name), failed to have the grounds
crew remove the “black ice” prior to allowing him to walk upon it. He also claims that
Defendants Grievance Officer Gans, Director Baldwin, and Defendant Knauer of the
Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) wrongfully denied his grievances on the subject. He
claims that Defendants Dorethy, Millard, Baldwin, Knauer and Gans issued false reports which
resulted in his being denied a hearing, though he does not identify the nature of the reports or of
the hearing.
The Eighth Amendment prohibits punishment which is “incompatible with ‘the evolving
standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.’’’ Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 102 (1976). “[E]xtreme deprivations are required to make out a conditions-ofconfinement claim.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992). A prison official is not liable
for inhumane 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 serious harm exists, and he must also draw the
inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
Additionally, “in order to establish a violation of the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must
show that a prison official was deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to an

2

inmate. Negligence on the part of an official does not violate the Constitution, and it is not
enough that he or she should have known of a risk.” Pierson v. Hartley, 391 F.3d 898, 902 (7th
Cir. 2004). Here, Plaintiff fails to allege that Defendants were aware that he was at a substantial
risk of serious harm and disregarded it. Rather, he appears to allege mere negligence, not the
deliberate indifference necessary to plead a constitutional claim. Id. at 902.
Furthermore, the courts have generally found that “prisoner slip-and-fall claims almost
never serve as the predicate for constitutional violations.” Ashlock v. Sexton, No.14-360, 2016
WL 3476367, at *3 (S.D. Ind. June 27, 2016) (internal citations omitted). “[F]ailing to provide a
maximally safe environment, one completely free from ... safety hazards is not [a form of cruel
and unusual punishment].” Velazquez v. Kane Cty. Jail Adult Judicial Ctr., No. 13-0644, 2013
WL 523827, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2013), citing Carroll v. DeTella, 255 F.3d 470, 472–73 (7th
Cir. 2000). Plaintiff’s conditions of confinement claim is dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiff’s claims that Defendants are constitutionally liable for denying his grievances
also fails to state a claim. Johnson v. Snyder, 444 F.3d 579, 584 (7th Cir.2006)(“[r]uling against
a prisoner on an administrative complaint does not cause or contribute to the [constitutional]
violation.”). “[T]he alleged mishandling of [Plaintiff’s] grievances by persons who otherwise
did not cause or participate in the underlying conduct states no claim.” Owens v. Hinsley, 635
F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011). This is because to public employees are liable “for their own
misdeeds, and not for anyone else's.” Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 595–96 (7th Cir.2009).
Plaintiff’s claims that Defendants conspired, submitted false reports and effectively
denied him a hearing are unduly vague and fails to apprise Defendants of the claims against
them. As a result, they are dismissed. Plaintiff names Jane and John Doe prison officials and
Jane and John Doe ARB officials in the caption but does not allege any claims against them.

3

Merely naming a defendant in the caption is insufficient to state a claim. Collins v. Kibort, 143
F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir.1998). Plaintiff’s Monell claim against IDOC is also dismissed as IDOC
is not a “person” amenable to suite under § 1983. 1 Thomas v. Illinois, 697 F.3d 612, 613 (7th
Cir. 2012).
There are substantial deficiencies in Plaintiff’s complaint and it appears doubtful that he
can successfully sustain, at least the conditions of confinement claim under the facts alleged.
Notwithstanding, Plaintiff will be given one opportunity to amend his complaint, consistent with
this order.
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. 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)

Plaintiff’s [5 ] motion for counsel is MOOT, with leave to reassert if he files an

amended complaint.
ENTERED: 9/22/2017
________s/Joe Billy McDade______
JOE BILLY McDADE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691-92 (1978) (finding a
municipality liable for constitutional injury resulting from its policy or practice).

4