Johnston v. Mulch et al

Filing 12

ORDER DISMISSING CASE: Plaintiff's claims against all Defendants for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and will be DISMISSED from this action with prejudice. Defendants MULC H, BROWN and PARKS shall be 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). Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 9/19/2012. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAMES E. JOHNSTON, #76825,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ROGER MULCH, CISSY BROWN and
DR. PARKS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 12-cv-830-GPM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MURPHY, District Judge:
Plaintiff Johnston, currently housed at Taylorville Correctional Center in the Central
District of Illinois, brings this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Defendants Mulch, Sheriff of Jefferson County Jail (Jefferson), Cissy Brown, Jefferson nurse,
Dr. Parks, Jefferson physician, for alleged Eighth Amendment violations occurring at that
facility. Jefferson is located in the Southern District of Illinois. Specifically, Plaintiff, who has
abnormally low blood sugar levels, states that, for an unspecified period and at an unknown date
during his incarceration at Jefferson, he did not receive adequate blood sugar monitoring or extra
allotments of food to stabilize his blood sugar. Plaintiff claims this was a dangerous medical
condition and his treatment at Jefferson constitutes deliberate indifference to a medical need.
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 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).
Plaintiff has failed to state facts indicating a serious medical condition. Plaintiff does not
indicate that he even suffered from any symptoms of any medical condition while at Jefferson.
Even if the court construed his assertions as such, Plaintiff does show that any individual’s
failure to give him additional blood sugar monitoring or additional food was a deliberate effort
by defendants to inflict pain upon him. Defendant has not pleaded facts indicating that any
defendant violated his Eighth Amendment protections. Accordingly, these claims shall be
dismissed.
Plaintiff seeks to have his illness addressed as well as compensatory damages. “[W]hen a
prisoner who seeks injunctive relief for a condition specific to a particular prison is transferred
out of that prison, the need for relief, and hence the prisoner’s claim, become moot.” Lehn v.
Holmes, 364 F.3d 862, 871 (7th Cir. 2004). See also Higgason v. Farley, 83 F.3d 807, 811 (7th
Cir. 1995).
Plaintiff’s claims against all Defendants for deliberate indifference to a serious medical
need fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and will be DISMISSED from this
action with prejudice. Defendants MULCH, BROWN and PARKS shall be 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).
Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the filing fee for this action was incurred at the time the
action was filed, thus the filing fee of $350 remains due and payable. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b)(1); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998).
The Clerk shall CLOSE THIS CASE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 19, 2012

/s/_G. PATRICK MURPHY____
G. PATRICK MURPHY
United States District Judge