Ryan v. Fenoglio et al

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING CASE: Plaintiff's claims against all Defendants for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and are DISMISSED from this action with prejudice. Defendants WOODS, FE NOGLIO, CUNNINGHAM, AND LAWRENCE CORRECTIONAL CENTER MEDICAL UNIT are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff is advised that the dismissal of this action will count as one of his three allotted "strikes" under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case on the Courts docket. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 9/18/2012. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SCOTT RYAN, # M-29560,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
vs.
)
)
LAWRENCE CORRECTIONAL CENTER )
MEDICAL UNIT,
)
DR. FENOGLIO,
)
NURSE WOOD, and,
)
DON CUNNINGHAM
)
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 12-cv-822-GPM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MURPHY, District Judge:
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center, has brought this pro se
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims generally Defendants were
deliberately indifferent to a serious medical condition. More specifically, Plaintiff, who suffers
from seizures, claims that at one point during his incarceration, from 1/18/12 to 3/15/12 he was
not given the proper dosage of a prescribed medication by Nurse Woods. Plaintiff additionally
alleges that he submitted request slips to Defendant Cunningham and to the paramedics at
Lawrence. Defendant does not state the nature of the requests or the dates of submission. As to
Defendant Fenoglio, M.D. Plaintiff’s complaint is that Dr. Fenoglio has not interviewed him
since Plaintiff’s arrival at Lawrence.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to conduct a prompt threshold review of
the complaint. Accepting Plaintiff’s allegations as true, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed

1

to articulate a colorable federal cause of action against Defendants for deliberate indifference to
medical needs.
In order to state a claim of cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth
Amendment, a prisoner must allege “‘acts and omissions sufficiently harmful to
evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs,’” Benson v. Cady, 761
F.2d 335, 340 (7th Cir. 1985), quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97
S.Ct. 285, 292, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). “[T]he infliction of suffering on prisoners
can be found to violate the Eighth Amendment only if that infliction is either
deliberate, or reckless in the criminal law sense.” Duckworth [v. Franzen], 780
F.2d [645,] 652-53 [(7th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 107 S.Ct. 71 (1986)].
Negligence, gross negligence, or even “recklessness” as that term is used in tort
cases, is not enough. Id. at 653.
Shockley v. Jones, 823 F.2d 1068, 1072 (7th Cir. 1987).
Defendant has not alleged that Defendant Woods deliberately denied him a proper dosage
of his medication. Indeed, Plaintiff received his correct prescription prior to filing his complaint.
Additionally Plaintiff has failed to plead any facts that show that Defendants Fenoglio,
Cunningham, or Lawrence Correctional Center Medical Unit are personally responsible for
violating Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights. “Public employees are responsible for their own
misdeeds but not for anyone else’s.” Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 596 (7th Cir. 2009). See
also Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266
F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001) (doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to § 1983 actions).
Accordingly, these claims are dismissed with prejudice.
Disposition
Plaintiff’s claims against all Defendants for deliberate indifference to a serious medical
need fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and are DISMISSED from this action
with prejudice. Defendants WOODS, FENOGLIO, CUNNINGHAM, AND LAWRENCE
CORRECTIONAL CENTER MEDICAL UNIT are dismissed with prejudice.

2

Plaintiff is advised that the dismissal of this action will count as one of his three allotted
“strikes” under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to
CLOSE this case on the Court’s docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 18, 2012

/s/ G. Patrick Murphy
G. PATRICK MURPHY
United States District Judge

3