McClain v. Curran et al
Filing
6
WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 12/10/2012: Plaintiff's certificate is construed as a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 4 and is granted. The Court authorizes and orders Dixon Correctional Center offici als to deduct $26.54 from Plaintiff's account, and to continue making monthly deductions in accordance with this order. The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the Inmate Trust Account Office at Dixon Correctional Center to facilitat e compliance. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Defendants Curran, and the unnamed Director of the Lake County Jail are dismissed as Defendants. With respect to Plaintiff's deliberate indifference to medical care claim, Court dismisses the c omplaint on file without prejudice. Plaintiff is granted until 1/10/13 in which to submit an amended complaint (plus a judge's copy and service copies). Failure to submit an amended complaint by 1/10/13 will result in summary dismissal of this case. The Clerk is directed to provide Plaintiff with an amended civil rights complaint form and instructions along with a copy of this order. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel 5 is denied. Mailed notice [For further details see opinion.](mgh, )
Order Form (01/2005)
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge
Amy J. St. Eve
CASE NUMBER
12 C 9405
CASE
TITLE
Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge
DATE
12/10/2012
Thomas McClain (#A-73519) v. Mark Curran, et al.
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:
Plaintiff’s certificate is construed as a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [#4] and is granted. The Court
authorizes and orders Dixon Correctional Center officials to deduct $26.54 from Plaintiff’s account, and to continue making
monthly deductions in accordance with this order. The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the Inmate Trust Account
Office at Dixon Correctional Center to facilitate compliance. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Defendants Curran, and the
unnamed Director of the Lake County Jail are dismissed as Defendants. With respect to Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference
to medical care claim, Court dismisses the complaint on file without prejudice. Plaintiff is granted until 1/10/13 in which
to submit an amended complaint (plus a judge’s copy and service copies). Failure to submit an amended complaint by
1/10/13 will result in summary dismissal of this case. The Clerk is directed to provide Plaintiff with an amended civil rights
complaint form and instructions along with a copy of this order. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [#5] is
denied.
O [For further details see text below.]
Docketing to mail notices.
STATEMENT
Plaintiff, currently in state custody at Dixon Correctional Center, has brought this pro se civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that on August 26, 2012, he slipped and fell on water that had
leaked from under a shower door on the floor of his cell house. He further alleges that he was subjected to
deliberate indifference to a serious medical condition by Defendant Correctional Officer Fugelseth. He alleges
that he did not see a doctor after the fall until he was transferred to Stateville Correctional Center four days later.
He alleges he was given tylenol and ice packs in the intervening four days.
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1),
the plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $26.54. The supervisor of inmate trust accounts at Plaintiff’s
place of confinement is authorized and ordered to collect, when funds exist, the partial filing fee from Plaintiff’s
trust fund account and pay it directly to the Clerk of Court. After payment of the initial partial filing fee, the trust
fund officer at Plaintiff’s place of confinement is directed to collect monthly payments from Plaintiff’s trust fund
account in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding month’s income credited to the account. Monthly payments
collected from Plaintiff’s trust fund account shall be forwarded to the Clerk of Court each time the amount in the
account exceeds $10 until the full $350 filing fee is paid. All payments shall be sent to the Clerk, United States
District Court, 219 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, Illinois 60604, attn: Cashier’s Desk, 20th Floor, and shall clearly
identify Plaintiff’s name and the case number assigned to this action. The Dixon Correctional Center inmate trust
account office shall notify transferee authorities of any outstanding balance in the event Plaintiff is transferred
from the jail to another correctional facility.
In this case, Plaintiff alleges that he slipped and fell in water that had leaked out from under a shower door
that had no water strip blocking the base of the door. It is most unfortunate that Plaintiff was injured; however,
his allegations do not implicate the Constitution. Although wet floors do present a possibility that inmates might
slip, strewn floors do present a possibility that inmates might slip and fall, Plaintiff’s allegations do not suggest
AWL
Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT (continued)
a substantial risk of serious harm that reflects the deliberate indifference required to impose liability under the
Fourteenth Amendment. Compare LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1457 (9th Cir. 1993) (“slippery prison floors.
. . do not state even an arguable claim for cruel and unusual punishment”). At most, Plaintiff has shown that
Defendants were negligent, but negligence alone is not enough to support a claim of deliberate indifference.
Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 332 (1986); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Any cause of action
for negligence must be brought in state court. As Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants Curran and Director of the
Lake County Jail is for negligence only, and he makes no other claim against them, they are dismissed as
Defendants.
To the extent Plaintiff is alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical condition against Defendant
Fugelseth, he must submit an amended complaint. Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the
complaint to contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the basis for the court’s jurisdiction; (2) a short and plain
statement of the plaintiff’s basic claims, and (3) a demand for the relief sought. Plaintiff’s claim must be
“plausible” in that there are “enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence”
that supports the plaintiff’s allegations. Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007). To satisfy the notice
pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), Plaintiff need only state his legal claim and provide “some
indication . . . of time and place.” Thompson v. Washington, 362 F.3d 969, 971 (2004).
“[A] prison official may evidence deliberate indifference by failing to treat or delaying the treatment of a
serious medical need.” Langston v. Peters, 100 F.3d 1235, 1241 (7th Cir. 1996) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
97, 104 (1976)). For liability to exist the medical need must be objectively serious and the prison officer’s reaction
must have amounted to deliberate indifference, i.e. a conscious disregard of a known serious risk of harm.
Langston, 100 F.3d at 1241. Plaintiff has pled that he did not see a doctor after the fall until he was transferred to
Stateville Correctional Center, four days later, but that he received tylenol and ice packs while at the Lake County
Jail. He also says he had injuries to his back, right leg, and shoulder, but does not adequately describe the injuries
for the Court to determine whether his injuries were objectively serious. So, Plaintiff should tell the Court and
Defendants how seriously he was injured, and what Defendant Fugelseth did in response to Plaintiff’s injuries.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff is granted
thirty days in which to submit an amended complaint on the Court’s amended civil rights complaint form, assuming
he can articulate a viable claim against Defendant Fugelseth. Plaintiff must write both the case number and the
judge’s name on the amended complaint, sign it, and return it to the Clerk of Court. As with every document filed
with the Court, Plaintiff must provide an extra copy for the judge; he must also submit a service copy for each
Defendant named in the amended complaint. Plaintiff is cautioned that an amended pleading supersedes the
original complaint and must stand complete on its own. Therefore, all allegations against all Defendants must be
set forth in the proposed amended complaint, without reference to the prior pleadings. Any exhibits Plaintiff wants
the Court to consider in its threshold review of the proposed amended complaint must be attached, and each copy
of the amended complaint must include complete copies of any and all exhibits.
The Clerk will provide Plaintiff with an amended civil rights complaint form and instructions along with
a copy of this order. If Plaintiff fails to comply by 1/10/13, the case will be summarily dismissed, on the
understanding that Plaintiff does not choose to pursue his claims in federal court.
Finally, Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. The motion is denied. Plaintiff has no right
to counsel in a civil case. See Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 851 (7th Cir. 2010); Johnson v. Doughty, 433
F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir. 2006). The case at the present time does not involve complex discovery or an evidentiary
hearing, and Plaintiff’s current pleadings indicate that he has the presence of mind and intellectual capability to
continue representing himself at this stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, his motion for the appointment of
counsel is denied without prejudice. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 656-59. (7th Cir. 2007). Consequently, the
Court denies his motion without prejudice to renewal should the case proceed to a point that assistance of counsel
is appropriate.
Page 2 of 2
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?