Jackson v. Lawrence Correctional Center Health Care et al

Filing 6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Lawrence Correctional Center/Health Care is hereby DISM ISSED with prejudice. Defendant Coe is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file his First Amended Complaint on or before March 20, 2015. Should Plaintiff fail to file his First Amended Complaint within the allotted time or consistent with the instructions set forth in this Order, the entire case shall be dismissed with prejudice. (Amended Pleadings due by 3/20/2015). Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 2/12/2015. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
HOWARD JACKSON, # R-18773,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LAWRENCE CORRECTIONAL
CENTER HEATLH CARE
and DR. J. COE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15-cv-00082-JPG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT, District Judge:
Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center, brings this pro
se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). He is serving a four year sentence
for criminal sexual assault. Plaintiff now sues Lawrence Correctional Center Health Care1 and
one of its doctors, J. Coe, for allegedly denying his requests for an x-ray of his testicles.2
Plaintiff seeks an “emergency” x-ray (Doc. 1, pp. 6-7).
Merits Review Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, the Court is required to promptly screen prisoner
complaints to filter out nonmeritorious claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court is required to

1

The case caption of the complaint lists “Lawrence Correctional Center” as a defendant. The list of
defendants refers to “Lawrence Health Care.” Plaintiff appears to use the two names interchangeably in
reference to a single defendant.
2
This lawsuit represents the third action that Plaintiff has filed within approximately two years to address
this issue. See also Jackson v. Wexford Health Care Sources, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-01134-MJR (S.D. Ill.
dismissed Dec. 2, 2013) (Doc. 10); Jackson v. Kraznician, et al., No. 14-cv-00007-MJR (S.D. Ill.
dismissed Jan. 23, 2014) (Doc. 6). It is the second one that addresses claims against Lawrence officials.
See also Jackson v. Wexford Health Care Sources, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-01134-MJR. All prior lawsuits
were dismissed with prejudice.
Page 1 of 9

dismiss any portion of the complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
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). The complaint does not pass muster under
this standard and shall be dismissed. However, Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to file an
amended complaint.
The Complaint
Plaintiff’s complaint offers scant information about his claim and is virtually
incomprehensible. In the pleading, he names two defendants: (1) “Lawrence Health Care,” with
the “position/title” described as “Privacy Balls X-ray;” and (2) Doctor Coe, J (Doc. 1, p. 1). The
statement of claim consists of a single phrase: “Emergency x-ray Health care Problem” (Doc. 1,
p. 6). In his list of previous lawsuits, Plaintiff offers some additional clues about the nature of
his claim: “I have a emergency problem an I need help for a x-ray for my balls (sic)” (Doc. 1,
p. 3). He adds the following in a separate section:

Page 2 of 9

I have A Emergency Problem an I need help the Doctor, Coe J. He’s not giveing
me my Help that I need so I’m asking You for Emergency Help for A x-Ray I
field something in my Balls an it gets Big’s inside my Balls something in me
moving an it don’t field Right I’m crying for Help
(Doc. 1, p. 4).
Attached to the complaint are three additional documents that offer some insight into
Plaintiff’s claim.

First, Plaintiff includes a grievance, dated June 12, 2013, in which he

complains of on-going pain in his testicles and alludes to his many attempts to obtain an x-ray at
Pontiac Correctional Center, Big Muddy River Correctional Center, and Lawrence Correctional
Center (Doc. 1, pp. 8, 12). In addition, he includes a letter, dated January 9, 2012, from a Big
Muddy official explaining why one request for an x-ray was denied (Doc. 1, p. 9).
Finally, Plaintiff includes a page in which he states, “I have to send you the other Part of my
1983 Law Suit because it diding go in my Write out . . . the Law Library is not give out Legal
Envelope no more. . . .” (Doc. 1, p. 11).
Discussion
Plaintiff appears to be bringing a claim against Lawrence Correctional Center Health
Care and Doctor Coe for the denial of medical care.
Amendment.

This claim arises under the Eighth

Relevant to Plaintiff’s claim, the Eighth Amendment to the United States

Constitution protects prisoners from cruel and unusual punishment. Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d
435, 439 (7th Cir. 2010). Prison officials 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).

Plaintiff’s claim fails in both form and substance.
With regard to form, the complaint does not satisfy the most rudimentary pleading
standards. Rule 8(a)(2) requires a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
Page 3 of 9

pleader is entitled to relief.” Vicom, Inc. v. Harbridge Merch. Serv., Inc., 20 F.3d 771, 775-76
(7th Cir. 1994) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2)). In other words, Plaintiff must include, in his
statement of claim, “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).
Plaintiff includes no factual allegations in the statement of claim at all. The section
entitled “Statement of Claim” sets forth Plaintiff’s request for relief.

The section entitled

“Request for Relief” reiterates this request. The Court is left to sift through the pages of the
complaint and the attached exhibits, in order to determine what, if any, basis exists for Plaintiff’s
claim against Defendants. The Court is not obligated to craft a claim on Plaintiff’s behalf, and
Defendants cannot respond to such a piecemeal pleading.
In substance, the operative complaint does not suggest that Plaintiff was suffering from a
serious medical need or that any particular defendant showed deliberate indifference toward that
need. The complaint contains no indication that Plaintiff’s condition now is, or ever was,
objectively serious. The Seventh Circuit has held that a medical need is “serious” where it has
either “been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment” or where the need is “so obvious
that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.”
Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1373 (7th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff’s exhibits mention a knot that
he found in his testicles in 2013. In the complaint, he repeatedly requests an “emergency” x-ray.
Beyond this, the pleading does not indicate that a medical professional ever recommended an xray or that an x-ray -- as opposed to some other diagnostic procedure -- is necessary.
Turning to the subjective component of an Eighth Amendment claim, no allegations in
the complaint or exhibits suggest that any individual exhibited deliberate indifference toward
Plaintiff’s condition. Deliberate indifference is established when prison officials “know of and

Page 4 of 9

disregard an excessive risk to inmate health” by being “‘aware of facts from which the inference
could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists’” and “‘draw[ing] the inference.’”
Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2005) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
834 (1994)). Liability under Section 1983 requires a defendant’s personal involvement in the
alleged constitutional violation. Palmer v. Marion County, 327 F.3d 588, 594 (7th Cir. 2003).
In other words, the defendant must have caused or participated in the violation of Plaintiff’s
Eighth Amendment rights by responding to his need for medical treatment with deliberate
indifference. Pepper v. Village of Oak Park, 430 F.3d 809, 810 (7th Cir. 2005).
Plaintiff names Doctor Coe as one of two defendants in this action, but he includes no
allegations against Doctor Coe in the statement of claim.3 Merely invoking the name of a
potential defendant is not sufficient to state a claim against that individual. See Collins v. Kibort,
143 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1998). The reason that plaintiffs, even those proceeding pro se, for
whom the Court is required to liberally construe complaints, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520-21 (1972), are required to associate specific defendants with specific claims is so these
defendants are put on notice of the claims brought against them and so they can properly answer
the complaint.

FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2).

Because the complaint is silent as to what role

Doctor Coe played in Plaintiff’s alleged constitutional deprivation, Defendant Coe shall be
dismissed without prejudice from this action.
The only other Defendant in this action is “Lawrence Correctional Center Health Care”
which the complaint also refers to as “Lawrence Correctional Center.” Despite being named in
the case caption and the list of Defendants, no allegations are included in the statement of claim

3

In the section devoted to “Previous Lawsuits,” Plaintiff indicates that Doctor Coe is “not giving
[Plaintiff] help,” but provides no further specifics. It is therefore unclear whether this statement even
pertains to the present lawsuit.
Page 5 of 9

against this defendant.4

Further, to the extent that Plaintiff intended to name the prison,

Lawrence Correctional Center is not amenable to suit under Section 1983. The Supreme Court
has held that “neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under
[Section] 1983.”

Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).

See also

Wynn v. Southward, 251 F.3d 588, 592 (7th Cir. 2001) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits against
states in federal court for money damages). Lawrence Correctional Center is a division of the
Illinois Department of Corrections and is therefore not a “person” within the meaning of the
Civil Rights Act. See Will, 491 U.S. at 71. For these reasons, “Lawrence Correctional Center
Health Care,” which is also referred to as “Lawrence Correctional Center,” shall be dismissed
with prejudice from this action.
In summary, because the complaint fails to state any claim upon which relief may be
granted, it shall be dismissed.

However, the dismissal of the complaint shall be without

prejudice to Plaintiff filing a “First Amended Complaint” addressing the defects described
above. Instructions for filing a First Amended Complaint are set forth below in the sections
entitled “First Amended Complaint” and “Disposition.”
First Amended Complaint
If Plaintiff wishes to pursue his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical
needs claim against Defendant Coe, Plaintiff is INSTRUCTED to file an amended complaint
with this Court within 35 days of the date of this order (on or before March 20, 2015). Failure
to follow the Court’s instructions will result in dismissal of this action with prejudice for failure
to state a claim under Section 1915A. The Clerk of Court is INSTRUCTED to send Plaintiff the

4

Further, to the extent that Plaintiff intends to name a member of the health care staff as a defendant in
the amended complaint, he should refer to that individual by his or her name, instead of “Health Care.”
If Plaintiff does not know an individual’s name, he should refer to that person generically (and
consistently) throughout the complaint as “Jane Doe,” “John Doe,” etc.
Page 6 of 9

appropriate form to submit a Section 1983 claim.
When filing his amended pleading, Plaintiff should label the pleading “First Amended
Complaint.” He should also use this case number. He should refer to the constitutional or
statutory ground(s) for relief. Plaintiff should also be careful to include sufficient facts to
demonstrate that he suffered from a serious medical condition, and Defendant Coe responded to
that condition with deliberate indifference.
Given Plaintiff’s request for relief (i.e., an x-ray), it may be appropriate to name
Lawrence’s warden as a party to the action. The Seventh Circuit has made it clear that the
proper defendant in a claim for injunctive relief is the government official responsible for
ensuring any injunctive relief is carried out. See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Feinerman, 663 F.3d 311, 315
(7th Cir. 2011). Here, that party would be Lawrence’s warden, in his or her official capacity.
Pending Motion
Plaintiff has also filed a motion for recruitment of counsel (Doc. 3), which shall be held
IN ABEYANCE pending the Court’s receipt of the First Amended Complaint.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that for the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s complaint
(Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Lawrence Correctional Center/Health
Care is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. Defendant Coe is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file his “First Amended Complaint” on or before
March 20, 2015. Should Plaintiff fail to file his First Amended Complaint within the allotted
time or consistent with the instructions set forth in this Order, the entire case shall be dismissed

Page 7 of 9

with prejudice. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). See generally Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051
(7th Cir. 1997); Johnson v. Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Further, the dismissal shall count as one of Plaintiff’s allotted “strikes” under the provisions of
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Should Plaintiff decide to file an amended complaint, it is strongly recommended that he
use the forms designed for use in this District for such actions. He should label the form,
“First Amended Complaint,” and he should use the case number for this action. The amended
complaint shall focus on Plaintiff’s Eight Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs
claim. The First Amended Complaint shall specify, by name, each defendant alleged to be liable
under the count, as well as the actions alleged to have been taken by that defendant.
Plaintiff should attempt to include the facts of his case in chronological order, inserting each
defendant’s name where necessary to identify the actors. Plaintiff should refrain from filing
unnecessary exhibits.

Plaintiff should include only related claims in his new complaint.

Claims found to be unrelated to the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs
claim will be severed into new cases, new case numbers will be assigned, and additional filing
fees will be assessed.
Should Plaintiff seek any sort of immediate relief, such as a temporary restraining order
or a preliminary injunction, he must file a separate motion pursuant to Rule 65 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This motion may be filed along with an amended complaint or
at any time thereafter, while the action is still pending. To enable Plaintiff to comply with this
order, the Clerk is DIRECTED to mail Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint form.
An amended complaint supersedes and replaces the original complaint, rendering the
original complaint void. See Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., 354 F.3d 632, 638 n. 1

Page 8 of 9

(7th Cir. 2004). The Court will not accept piecemeal amendments to the original complaint.
Thus, the First Amended Complaint must stand on its own, without reference to any previous
pleading, and Plaintiff must re-file any exhibits he wishes the Court to consider along with the
First Amended Complaint. The First Amended Complaint is also subject to review pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Plaintiff is further ADVISED that his obligation to pay the filing fee for this action was
incurred at the time the action was filed, thus the filing fee of $350.00 remains due and payable,
regardless of whether Plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1);
Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998).
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: February 12, 2015

s/J. Phil Gilbert
United States District Judge

Page 9 of 9