Rogers v. Halford

Filing 7

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants S.A. GODINEZ, VICTOR DOZIER, KIM REEDER and "HEALTH CARE PROVIDER" are DISMISSED with prejudice for fa ilure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Defendants S.A. GODINEZ, VICTOR DOZIER, KIM REEDER and "HEALTH CARE PROVIDER" are therefore DISMISSED from this action with prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendant MARY HALFORD: (1) Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service of Summons). Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 5/2/2013. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAMES L. ROGERS, # N32117,
Plaintiff,
vs.
S.A. GODINEZ,
VICTOR DOZIER,
MARY HALFORD,
KIM REEDER, and
HEALTH CARE PROVIDER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 13-cv-00304-GPM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MURPHY, District Judge:
Plaintiff James L. Rogers, currently incarcerated at Vandalia Correctional Center
(“Vandalia”), has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is
serving a five year sentence for theft; he is slated for release in approximately May 2013. The
complaint asserts that the defendant prison officials and health care providers were deliberately
indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Plaintiff is HIV-positive and also has Hepatitis C. In December 2011 he had an intake
physical at Stateville Correctional Center; he was prescribed a medication regimen and a
therapeutic “double portion” diet (see Doc. 1, p. 8). Approximately one week later, Plaintiff was
transferred to Vandalia where an unidentified physician informed him that that institution does
not permit therapeutic diets. Defendant Mary Halford, the director of nursing at Vandalia, was
consulted after Plaintiff filed a grievance. Halford stated that no therapeutic diet had been
ordered (see Doc. 1, p. 14). Plaintiff asserts that Halford actually removed the prescription from

Page 1 of 8

Plaintiff’s medical file. It is further alleged that Defendants Warden Victor Dozier and Illinois
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) Director S.A. Godinez subsequently concurred with the
denial of Plaintiff’s grievance, and by extension with Halford (see Doc. 1, pp. 14-15). Plaintiff
also sues Defendant Kim Reeder, an HIV Clinic nurse, who was “negligent” for ignoring
Plaintiff’s “cry for help” and not helping him secure a therapeutic diet.
Regarding the prescribed medication regimen, it is alleged that an unidentified doctor
informed Plaintiff that he did not have “ample time” to complete the Hepatitis C medication
regimen before his release date. Nursing director Mary Halford was consulted again, after
Plaintiff filed a grievance. Halford confirmed that when there is not “ample time” to complete
the treatment series, treatment is not commenced (see Doc. 1, p. 17). Warden Dozier and
Director Godinez subsequently concurred with the denial of Plaintiff’s grievance, thereby
agreeing with Halford (see Doc. 1, pp. 17-18).
Plaintiff further asserts that the IDOC has denied him treatment in violation of the
Eighth Amendment, although the IDOC is not a named defendant. An unidentified “Health Care
Provider” is named as a defendant, for providing the physician who failed to provide treatment.
This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:
(a) Screening.– The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as
soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for Dismissal.– On review, the court shall identify cognizable
claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint–
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief.

Page 2 of 8

An action or claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Conversely, a complaint is
plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Although the Court is obligated to accept factual allegations as true,
see Smith v. Peters, 631 F.3d 418, 419 (7th Cir. 2011), some factual allegations may be so
sketchy or implausible that they fail to provide sufficient notice of a plaintiff’s claim. Brooks v.
Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009). Additionally, Courts “should not accept as adequate
abstract recitations of the elements of a cause of action or conclusory legal statements.” Id. At
the same time, however, the factual allegations of a pro se complaint are to be liberally
construed. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
Upon careful review of the complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it
appropriate to exercise its authority under Section 1915A; portions of this action are subject to
summary dismissal.
Analysis
Mary Halford
The complaint states a viable Eighth Amendment claim against Mary Halford for
deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
835 (1994); Holloway v. Deleware Cnty. Sheriff, 700 F.3d 1063, 1072 (7th Cir. 2012).

Page 3 of 8

S.A. Godinez
Defendant Godinez is the director of the IDOC; in that capacity, he is the final step in the
prison grievance process (see Doc. 1, p. 17). Consequently, Plaintiff’s two grievances were
presented to the Director for final review. However, “[t]he doctrine of respondeat superior does
not apply to [Section] 1983 actions; thus to be held individually liable, a defendant must be
‘personally responsible for the deprivation of a constitutional right.’ ” Sanville v. McCaughtry,
266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001) (quoting Chavez v. Ill. State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 651 (7th
Cir. 2001)). The documentation submitted along with the complaint reveals that Godiez did not
personally sign-off on the denial of Plaintiff’s grievances (see Doc. 1, pp. 15 and 18). It is clear
that “TA” signed on behalf of Godinez. Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that Godinez
acted with deliberate indifference. See Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 595 (7th Cir. 2009)
(“The Governor, and for that matter the Superintendent of Prisons and the Warden of each
prison, is entitled to relegate to the prison’s medical staff the provision of good medical care.”).
Therefore, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to IDOC
Director S.A. Godinez in his individual capacity, and he shall be dismissed with prejudice.
Insofar as Godinez may be sued in his official capacity, such a suit is actually against the
IDOC, which otherwise is not named as a defendant. See Jaros v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections,
684 F.3d 667, 670 n. 2 (7th Cir. 2012). However, the bald, conclusory statement that the IDOC
denied Plaintiff treatment (Doc. 1, p. 7) is insufficient under the Twombly pleading standard.
Therefore, the Court will not take it upon itself to add the IDOC as a defendant and fashion a
claim out of whole cloth.

Page 4 of 8

Victor Dozier
It is alleged that Warden Victor Dozier concurred with the denial of Plaintiff’s two
grievances, adopting Nursing Director Mary Halford’s factual assertions and conclusions.
Again, the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to Section1983 actions. Sanville, 266
F.3d at 740. Plaintiff does not offer any evidence that Warden Dozier acted with deliberate
indifference. Prison wardens are entitled to relegate to the prison medical staff the provision of
good medical care. Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 595 (7th Cir. 2009). Furthermore, merely
being aware of a problem by way of a grievance, and ruling against a prisoner’s grievance are
not deliberate indifference. See Johnson v. Snyder, 444 F.3d 579, 584, 586 (7th Cir. 2006).
Therefore, dismissal with prejudice is warranted.
Kim Reeder
Plaintiff takes issue with Nurse Kim Reeder because she was negligent by failing to help
Plaintiff secure his prescribed diet and medication regimen. Section 1983 requires that a prison
official acted wantonly; negligence, even gross negligence, is not enough. Gomez v. Randle, 680
F.3d 859, 864 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing Harper v. Albert, 400 F.3d 1052, 1065 (7th Cir. 2005)).
Therefore, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against
Defendant Reeder, and she shall be dismissed with prejudice.
“Health Care Provider”
Plaintiff sues an unidentified “Health Care Provider” for providing the physician who
denied him treatment. As already noted, it is unclear whether Plaintiff is referring to the IDOC
or a contract health care provider. In that respect, the complaint fails to meet the Twombly
pleading standard. Furthermore, because the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to
Section1983 actions (Sanville, 266 F.3d at 740), and negligent hiring is not actionable under

Page 5 of 8

Section 1983 (see generally Gomez, 680 F.3d 859, 864; see also Bailey v. Faulkner, 765 F.2d
102, 104-105 (7th Cir. 1985)). Therefore, this claim must be dismissed with prejudice.
Pending Motion
Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed as a pauper (Doc. 6); therefore, his motion for
service of process at government expense (Doc. 4) shall be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(d).
Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 2) shall be referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson for further consideration.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, for the reasons stated, all Eighth Amendment claims
against Defendants S.A. GODINEZ, VICTOR DOZIER, KIM REEDER and “HEALTH
CARE PROVIDER” are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. Defendants S.A. GODINEZ, VICTOR DOZIER, KIM REEDER and
“HEALTH CARE PROVIDER” are therefore DISMISSED from this action with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the only claims remaining in this action are, against
Defendant MARY HALFORD for denying Plaintiff a therapeutic diet and Hepatitis C
medication regimen in violation of the Eighth Amendment. This case shall now be captioned as:
James L. Rogers, Plaintiff, vs. Mary Halford, Defendant.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for service of process at
government expense (Doc. 4) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendant
MARY HALFORD: (1) Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a
Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service of Summons). The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail
these forms, a copy of the complaint, and this Memorandum and Order to the Defendant’s place

Page 6 of 8

of employment as identified by Plaintiff. If the Defendant fails to sign and return the Waiver of
Service of Summons (Form 6) to the Clerk within 30 days from the date the forms were sent, the
Clerk shall take appropriate steps to effect formal service on the Defendant, and the Court will
require that the Defendant pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
If the Defendant can no longer can be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff, the
employer shall furnish the Clerk with the Defendant’s current work address, or, if not known, the
Defendant’s last-known address. This information shall be used only for sending the forms as
directed above or for formally effecting service. Any documentation of the address shall be
retained only by the Clerk. Address information shall not be maintained in the court file or
disclosed by the Clerk.
Plaintiff shall serve upon the Defendant (or upon defense counsel once an appearance is
entered), a copy of every pleading or other document submitted for consideration by the Court.
Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be filed a certificate stating the date on which a
true and correct copy of the document was served on the Defendant or counsel. Any paper
received by a district judge or magistrate judge that has not been filed with the Clerk or that fails
to include a certificate of service will be disregarded by the Court.
The Defendant is ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the
complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g).
Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a)(2), this action is REFERRED to United States Magistrate
Judge Donald G. Wilkerson for further pre-trial proceedings, which shall include a determination
on the pending motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 2).

Page 7 of 8

Further, this entire matter shall be REFERRED to United States Magistrate Judge
Donald G. Wilkerson for disposition, pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c),
if all parties consent to such a referral.
If judgment is rendered against Plaintiff, and the judgment includes the payment of costs
under Section 1915, Plaintiff will be required to pay the full amount of the costs, notwithstanding
that his application to proceed in forma pauperis has been granted.

See 28 U.S.C. §

1915(f)(2)(A).
Plaintiff is ADVISED that at the time application was made under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for
leave to commence this civil action without being required to prepay fees and costs or give
security for the same, the applicant and his or her attorney were deemed to have entered into a
stipulation that the recovery, if any, secured in the action shall be paid to the Clerk of the Court,
who shall pay therefrom all unpaid costs taxed against plaintiff and remit the balance to plaintiff.
Local Rule 3.1(c)(1).
Finally, Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk
of Court and each opposing party informed of any change in his address; the Court will not
independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later than 7
days after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this order will
cause a delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in dismissal of this action
for want of prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 2, 2013
/s/ ZA ctàÜ|v~ `âÜÑ{ç
G. PATRICK MURPHY
United States District Judge

Page 8 of 8