Campos v. Doe et al

Filing 10

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 8/25/2017. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

DANIEL A. CAMPOS,
No. B87925,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JANE DOE,
SHERIFF BURNS,
C/O JESSICA, and
C/O STRATTON,

Case No. 17−cv–670-JPG

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT, District Judge:
Plaintiff Daniel A. Campos, an inmate in Menard Correctional Center, brings this action
for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff brings claims
pertaining to his prior detention at Jackson County Jail. According to the Complaint, Defendants
violated Plaintiff’s rights by failing to properly care for Plaintiff’s colostomy bag on two
occasions and by prescribing Plaintiff a dangerous combination of medications, causing Plaintiff
to suffer from serotonin syndrome. (Doc. 1, pp. 5-9). In connection with his claims, Plaintiff
seeks monetary damages and “proper reprimands” for all parties involved. (Doc. 1, p. 10).
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

(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
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).
The Complaint
The Complaint suggests that Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at Jackson County Jail from
July of 2015 through October 20, 2015.1 Plaintiff claims that during his detention, he was often
forced to use “busted or used and very dirty colostomy bags for several hours [and] as long as
several days.” (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6). Plaintiff also contends that he was prescribed a dangerous
combination of medications, causing Plaintiff to suffer from serotonin syndrome and requiring
treatment at the emergency room. Id. The Court summarizes Plaintiff’s allegations below.

First Colostomy Bag Incident - Broken Colostomy Bag

1

On page 5 of the Complaint, Plaintiff references Cook County Jail. This appears to be a typographical error. The
named defendants are officials associated with the Jackson County Jail and Sherriff’s Department. Further, the bulk
of the Complaint references Plaintiff’s detention at Jackson County Jail.

2

At some point during his detention, Plaintiff’s colostomy bag burst. (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6). As
a result, Plaintiff had feces “all over.” (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff asked Defendants Stratton and
Jessica for a new colostomy bag, clean clothes, and clean bedding. Id. Stratton and Jessica failed
to assist Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff was left, sitting in his own feces, until the next shift change (5 to 6
hours later). Id. When a new correctional officer arrived, he or she immediately provided
Plaintiff with a clean colostomy bag, clothes, and bedding. Id. When Plaintiff wrote a grievance
regarding the incident, Defendant Stratton indicated that he and Jessica were busy and forgot
about Plaintiff’s request. (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6).
Second Colostomy Bag Incident - Segregation in October 2015
When Plaintiff was in segregation, he was forced to use the same dirty colostomy bag for
5-7 days. (Doc. 1, p. 5). This caused bleeding and severe irritation around Plaintiff’s stoma. Id.
Plaintiff experienced the resultant bleeding and irritation for approximately 2 to 3 months. Id.
These allegations are not associated with any particular defendant.
Serotonin Syndrome Claims
Plaintiff was released on October 20, 2015. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff was taken to
Carbondale Memorial Hospital for emergency treatment (plaintiff was “sick and throwing up”).
(Doc. 1, p. 5). The treating physician diagnosed Plaintiff with serotonin syndrome. Id. The
treating physician opined that the combination of medications prescribed by “the medical staff”
at Jackson County Jail (celexa, tramadol, and trazadone) were the cause. (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6). The
physician also indicated that the medical staff should not have directed Plaintiff to take the
antidepressant twice a day. Id. Rather, the antidepressant should only be taken once a day, in the
morning. Id. Plaintiff claims that, while detained, he complained to the medical staff at Jackson
County Jail about his antidepressant. Id. Specifically, he complained that he did not like the

3

antidepressant. Id. The medical staff did not stop prescribing the antidepressant. Id. These claims
are not associated with any of the Defendants. Instead, the claims are repeatedly directed against
“medical staff” at Jackson County Jail.
Discussion
The Court begins its § 1915A review with a note about the parties in this case. Although
Jane Doe and Sherriff Burns are identified as defendants in the case caption and list of
defendants, they are not referenced in the body of the Complaint. 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) (“A plaintiff cannot state a claim against a defendant by
including the defendant's name in the caption.”). Accordingly, these Defendants shall be
dismissed from this action without prejudice for failure to state a claim.
Turning to the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide
the pro se action into the following counts. Any other claim that is mentioned in the Complaint
but not addressed in this Order should be considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately
pled under the Twombly pleading standard.
Count 1 -

Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Jessica
and Stratton for failing to respond to Plaintiff’s broken colostomy
bag, causing Plaintiff to sit in feces for 5 to 6 hours.

Count 2 -

Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
unspecified individuals for failing to provide Plaintiff with a sanitary
colostomy bag when Plaintiff was in segregation.

Count 3 -

Fourteenth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference against
unspecified individuals for prescribing Plaintiff a potentially
dangerous combination of medications, causing Plaintiff to suffer
from serotonin syndrome.

Count 1 – Deliberate Indifference as to Jessica and Stratton

4

“Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual
punishment when they display ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners.’ ”
Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 652–53 (7th Cir. 2005) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
104 (1976)). Courts have extended this protection to pretrial detainees under the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chapman v. Keltner, 241 F.3d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 2001). A
claim of deliberate indifference has both an objective and a subjective component. McGee v.
Adams, 721 F.3d 474, 480 (7th Cir. 2013). To satisfy the objective element, Plaintiff must show
that his medical need was objectively serious. See, e.g., Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 653 (7th
Cir. 2005) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811
(1994)). A medical need is considered objectively serious if it has been diagnosed by a physician
as requiring treatment or if it is “so obvious that even a lay person would recognize the necessity
for a doctor's attention.” Id. To satisfy the subjective element, Plaintiff must show that
Defendants “were aware of [Plaintiff’s] serious medical need and were deliberately indifferent to
it.” McGee, 721 F.3d at 480. This requires showing something more than negligence, but it does
not require a plaintiff to prove he was literally ignored. Roe, 631 F.3d at 857–58. Instead, it is
sufficient to “show that the defendants knew of a substantial risk of harm to the inmate and
disregarded the risk.” Id. at 858 (quoting Greeno, 414 F.3d at 653).
Plaintiff’s allegations regarding his colostomy bag are sufficient to establish an
objectively serious medical condition. Obviously, a physician must have prescribed the use of a
colostomy bag to capture fecal waste following a colostomy (a surgical procedure). It should be
obvious to a lay person that health risks are inherent when a colostomy bag bursts and leaks fecal
matter. Plaintiff has also plausibly alleged that Jessica and Stratton responded with deliberate
indifference to Plaintiff’s leaking colostomy bag. According to the Complaint, the Defendants
5

failed to respond when Plaintiff’s colostomy bag burst, leaving Plaintiff sitting in fecal matter for
several hours.
These allegations are sufficient, at the screening stage, to state a plausible claim for
deliberate indifference. Accordingly, the Count 1 shall receive further review.
Count 2 – Deliberate Indifference – Segregation
Plaintiff contends that while he was in segregation, he was forced to use a dirty
colostomy bag for several days. This caused severe pain and irritation around Plaintiff’s stoma
that lasted for 2 to 3 months. Plaintiff may well have a viable deliberate indifference claim
pertaining to this incident. However, the Complaint does not associate this claim with any
particular defendant.2 Accordingly, Count 2 shall be dismissed without prejudice for failure to
state a claim.
Count 3 – Deliberate Indifference – Prescription Medications
Plaintiff contends that after being released from detention at Jackson County Jail, he
suffered from serotonin syndrome, requiring emergency treatment. The emergency room
physician opined that Plaintiff’s condition was the result of taking a dangerous combination of
medications – as prescribed by Jackson County medical staff. Plaintiff also contends that, during
his detention, he complained that he did not “like” taking his antidepressant but medical staff
ignored his complaint.

2

Plaintiffs, even those proceeding pro se, are required to associate specific defendants with specific claims so that
defendants are put on notice of the claims brought against them and can properly answer the complaint. See Haines
v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). Additionally, “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant
fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’ ” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Thus, where a plaintiff has not included a
defendant in his statement of the claim, the defendant cannot be said to be adequately put on notice of which claims
in the complaint, if any, are directed against him.

6

These allegations fall short of stating a claim for deliberate indifference. The opinion
offered by the emergency room physician, at most, suggests negligence or medical malpractice.
But, mere medical malpractice or a disagreement with a doctor's medical judgment is not
deliberate indifference. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 107, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251
(1976); Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 653; Estate of Cole by Pardue v. Fromm, 94 F.3d 254,
261 (7th Cir.1996). See also Edrano v. Smith, 161 F. App'x 596, 599 (7th Cir. 2006) (“Simple
differences of opinion among medical personnel or between the inmate and his prison doctors
concerning what is appropriate treatment do not constitute deliberate indifference.”). Further, the
fact that Plaintiff did not “like” his antidepressant does not suggest that Jackson County medical
staff acted with deliberate disregard by continuing to prescribe it.
Even if Plaintiff’s Complaint sufficiently alleged a deliberate indifference claim, Count 3
would still fail because it is not associated with any particular defendant. Instead, the allegations
are directed at “medical staff.” This is insufficient.3 For these reasons, Count 3 shall be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim.
Pending Motions
Plaintiff’s Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 3) shall be referred to a United
States Magistrate Judge for a decision.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the COUNT 1 shall receive further review as to
JESSICA and STRATTON.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that COUNTS 2 and 3 are DISMISSED without
prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

3

See fn. 2 supra.

7

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate JANE DOE and BURNS as parties
in CM/ECF.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as to COUNT 1, the Clerk of Court shall prepare for
Defendants JESSICA and STRATTON: (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
each Defendant’s place of employment as identified by Plaintiff. If a 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 that Defendant,
and the Court will require that Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent
authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
With respect to a Defendant who 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.
Defendants are 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 a United States
Magistrate Judge for further pre-trial proceedings, including Plaintiff’s Motion for Recruitment
of Counsel (Doc. 3). Further, this entire matter shall be REFERRED to a United States
Magistrate for disposition, pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), if all

8

parties consent to such a referral.
If judgment is rendered against Plaintiff, and the judgment includes the payment of costs
under § 1915, Plaintiff will be required to pay the full amount of the costs, regardless of whether
his application to proceed in forma pauperis is 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: August 25, 2017
s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
United States District Judge

9