Hartman v. Godinez et al

Filing 8

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all claims against all claims against all Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before January 16, 2015, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint. Failure to file an amended complai nt will result in the dismissal of this action with prejudice, and a strike will be assessed for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) for failing to state a claim against which relief can be granted. (Amended Pleadings due by 1/16/2015). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 12/22/2014. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DUSTIN L. HARTMAN,
No. K91992,
Plaintiff,
vs.
S.A. GODINEZ,
WARDEN RANDY DAVIS,
ASST. WARDEN LARUE LOVE, and
ASST. WARDEN ROBIN DILLON,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 14-cv-01321-MJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff Dustin L. Hartman, an inmate in Vienna Correctional Center, brings this action
for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on the denial of
medical care for his injured right arm.
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.
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). Frivolousness is an objective standard that refers
Page 1 of 4

to a claim that “no reasonable person could suppose to have any merit.” Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d
1025, 1026-27 (7th Cir. 2000). 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). The claim of entitlement to relief must
cross “the line between possibility and plausibility. Id. at 557.

At this juncture, the factual

allegations of the pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth
Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
Discussion
According to the complaint, Plaintiff Hartman injured his right arm while working in the
prison store and was in pain—purportedly a tendon injury. He reported the injury to Supervisor
Sullins, but Sullins minimized the injury and told Plaintiff that it would heal. Sullins also stated
that if Plaintiff put in a formal request for medical care Plaintiff would receive a disciplinary
report. When Plaintiff did request medical care, he was fired. He still has not received proper
medical care.
The complaint names as defendants IDOC Director Godinez, Warden Davis, and
Assistant Wardens Love and Dillard. Plaintiff claims he has been subjected to “cruel and
unusual punishment,” as well as “pain and suffering,” for which he seeks medical attention and
compensatory damages.
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects prisoners from being
subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. U.S. CONST., amend. VIII. See also Berry v.
Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 439 (7th Cir. 2010).

Eighth Amendment protection extends to

conditions of confinement that pose a substantial risk of serious harm, including health and
safety. See Estate of Miller, ex rel. Bertram v. Tobiasz, 680 F.3d 984 (7th Cir. 2012). Prison

Page 2 of 4

officials can violate the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment
when their conduct demonstrates “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners.”
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). A medical condition need not be life-threatening to
be serious; rather, it can be a condition that would result in further significant injury or
unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain if not treated. Gayton v. McCoy, 593 F.3d 610, 620
(7th Cir. 2010).

Thus, the allegations in the complaint fall within the ambit of the Eighth

Amendment; nevertheless, the complaint cannot proceed.
Section 1983 creates a cause of action based on personal liability and predicated upon
fault; thus, “to be liable under [Section] 1983, an individual defendant must have caused or
participated in a constitutional deprivation.” Pepper v. Village of Oak Park, 430 F.3d 809, 810
(7th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). Consequently, the doctrine of respondeat superior is not
applicable to Section 1983 actions. Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001).
“[S]upervisors must know about the conduct and facilitate it, approve it, condone it, or turn a
blind eye for fear of what they might see. They must in other words act either knowingly or with
deliberate, reckless indifference.” Backes v. Village of Peoria Heights, Illinois, 662 F.3d 866,
870 (7th Cir. 2011).
There are no allegations regarding IDOC Director Godinez, Warden Davis, and Assistant
Wardens Love and Dillard in the narrative of the complaint—no indication that they had any
involvement in the events at issue. Merely naming a defendant in the caption is insufficient to
state a claim. See Collins v. Kibort, 143 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1998). For these reasons,

Page 3 of 4

Director Godinez, Warden Davis, and Assistant Wardens Love and Dillard must be dismissed,
albeit without prejudice. 1

Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, for the reasons stated, all claims against all claims
against all Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before January 16, 2015, Plaintiff shall file an
amended complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in the dismissal of this
action with prejudice, and a “strike” will be assessed for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) for
failing to state a claim against which relief can be granted.
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. 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: December 22, 2014
s/ Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1

The complaint could be permitted to proceed against the warden in his official capacity only for

purposes of injunctive relief, but that is clearly not Plaintiff’s aim. Plaintiff will, therefore, be
given an opportunity to amend the complaint.
Page 4 of 4