Garcia v. Baldwin et al
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that BALDWIN and GARRETT are DISMISSED without prejudice from this cas e for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, should he wish to proceed with this case, Plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint, stating any facts which may exist to support an unconstitutional conditions of confinement claim, within 28 days of the entry of this order (on or before September 1, 2017). Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 8/4/2017. (jaj)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MARTIN GARCIA, #Y14404,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JOHN BALDWIN and
WARDEN GARRETT,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 17 cv–565 NJR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Plaintiff Martin Garcia, an inmate in Dixon Correctional Center, brings this action for
deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that allegedly occurred at
Big Muddy River Correctional Center. In his Complaint, Plaintiff claims the defendants are
responsible for the deliberate indifference of Big Muddy personnel to his serious medical needs
in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 1). The 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.”
1
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Frivolousness is an objective standard that refers
to a claim that any reasonable person would find meritless. Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 102627 (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).
Upon careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it
appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; this action is subject to summary dismissal.
The Complaint
In his Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff makes the following allegations: from July 11, 2016
through “an approximate period of 2 calendar years,” 1 Plaintiff has been neglected despite his
need for examination and diagnosis of severe groin pains and swollen testicles. (Doc. 1, p. 2).
Plaintiff has been provided with medical services “by unqualified personnel” under Warden
Garrett. Id. Plaintiff has not been given access to specialist care. Id. Plaintiff submitted a
grievance on the issue, but “the issues have remained without any success/results vague.” Id.
Plaintiff also noted that Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) Director Baldwin, along
with the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, are liable for money judgments against codefendants. (Doc. 1, p. 3). Plaintiff seeks monetary relief from the defendants. Id.
Discussion
Based on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to designate a
1
This Court notes that Plaintiff filed the Complaint on May 30, 2017, less than one calendar year from the
alleged start of Plaintiff’s medical issue.
2
single count in this pro se action. The parties and the Court will use this designation in all future
pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. The
designation of this count does not constitute an opinion regarding its merit.
Count 1 –
Defendants showed deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical
need involving severe groin pains and swollen testicles in violation of the
Eighth Amendment.
As discussed in more detail below, Count 1 will be dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. Any other intended claim that has not been recognized by the
Court is considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pleaded under the Twombly
pleading standard.
Count 1
Plaintiff has failed to implicate either of the defendants in his claim for deliberate
indifference to medical needs. Both of the defendants, the Director of the Illinois Department of
Corrections John Baldwin and the Warden of Big Muddy River Correctional Center Defendant
Garrett, appear to be named as defendants solely due to their supervisory and/or official positions
with IDOC. For defendants in supervisory positions, however, the doctrine of respondeat
superior is not applicable to § 1983 actions. Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir.
2001) (citations omitted). Plaintiff has not alleged that the defendants are “personally responsible
for the deprivation of a constitutional right,” and a defendant cannot be liable merely because he
supervised a person who caused a constitutional violation. Id. The defendants therefore must be
dismissed from this action.
Further, in order to state a claim upon which relief may be granted for deliberate
indifference to medical needs, Plaintiff must satisfy two requirements. The first requirement
compels the prisoner to satisfy an objective standard: “[T]he deprivation alleged must be,
3
objectively, ‘sufficiently serious[.]’” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (quoting
Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). The second requirement involves a subjective
standard: “[A] prison official must have a ‘sufficiently culpable state of mind,’” one that
amounts to “‘deliberate indifference’ to inmate health or safety.” Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d
1364, 1373 (7th Cir. 1997) (quoting Wilson, 501 U.S. at 297). Liability under the deliberateindifference standard requires more than negligence, gross negligence or even recklessness;
rather, it is satisfied only by conduct that approaches intentional wrongdoing, i.e., “something
less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm
will result.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835.
Plaintiff has not provided allegations that satisfy either of these standards. His allegations
regarding his condition are incredibly vague and, at times, apparently misleading. 2 He also has
not pled any facts regarding the state of mind of any of his medical providers, much less the
states of mind of the named defendants in this case. He has attached extensive documentation of
his medical records, but these records, if anything, appear to evidence that he was treated
frequently by the medical staff at Big Muddy during the relevant period, as opposed to being
neglected.
Finally, the fact that Plaintiff did not receive specialist care, as he claims, does not
necessarily give rise to a viable deliberate indifference claim. Mere disagreement with a
physician’s chosen course of medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference under
the Eighth Amendment. See Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 331 (7th Cir. 2003); Garvin v.
Armstrong, 236 F.3d 896, 898 (7th Cir. 2001) (courts will not takes sides in disagreements about
medical personnel’s judgments or techniques); Snipes v. DeTella, 95 F.3d 586, 591 (7th Cir.
2
He claims he has been neglected for two years, while also claiming his pain began less than one year prior to filing
his Complaint.
4
1996). The Eighth Amendment does not give prisoners entitlement to “demand specific care” or
“the best care possible,” but only requires “reasonable measures to meet a substantial risk of
serious harm.” Forbes v. Edgar, 112 F.3d 262, 267 (7th Cir. 1997). For these reasons, the
Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted.
Pending Motions
Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Inform the Court of Correct Name of Defendant (Doc. 4),
which is hereby DENIED as moot. Plaintiff claims the appropriate name for Defendant
“Warden Garrett” is instead “Warden Garnett.” Regardless of this defendant’s name, Plaintiff
has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against him, so he is being dismissed
from this case. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, and chooses to include this
individual as a defendant, he may name the defendant, with the appropriate spelling, at that time.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that BALDWIN and GARRETT are DISMISSED
without prejudice from this case for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, should he wish to proceed with this case, Plaintiff
shall file a First Amended Complaint, stating any facts which may exist to support an
unconstitutional conditions of confinement claim, within 28 days of the entry of this order (on or
before September 1, 2017). 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 for failure to comply with a court order and/or for failure to prosecute
5
his claims. FED. R. APP. 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. § 1915(e)(2). Such
dismissal shall count as one of Plaintiff’s three allotted “strikes” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g).
Should Plaintiff decide to file a First 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 (i.e. 17-cv-565NJR). The pleading shall present each claim in a separate count, and each count 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 alleged 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.
Plaintiff is warned that the Court takes the issue of perjury seriously, and that any facts
found to be untrue in the First Amended Complaint may be grounds for sanctions, including
dismissal and possible criminal prosecution for perjury. Rivera v. Drake, 767 F.3d 685, 686 (7th
Cir. 2014) (dismissing a lawsuit as a sanction where an inmate submitted a false affidavit and
subsequently lied on the stand).
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
(7th Cir. 2004). The Court will not accept piecemeal amendments to a complaint. Thus, the First
6
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 subject to review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
No service shall be ordered on any defendant until after the Court completes its § 1915A review
of the First Amended Complaint.
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 a First 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).
In order to assist Plaintiff in preparing his amended complaint, the Clerk is DIRECTED
to mail Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint form.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 4, 2017
___________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?