Shanklin v. St. Clair County Jail et al
ORDER DISMISSING CASE : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and this action are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This includes COUNT 1 against Defendants ST. C LAIR COUNTY JAIL, WEXFORD, and LPN APRIL, which is DISMISSED with prejudice for the same reason. Plaintiff is ADVISED that this dismissal shall count as one of his three allotted strikes under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 2/13/2018. (tjk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ST. CLAIR COUNTY JAIL,
and LPN APRIL,
Case No. 17-cv-01151-JPG
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT, District Judge:
This matter is now before the Court for preliminary review of the First Amended
Complaint filed by Plaintiff Emon Shanklin. (Doc. 8). Plaintiff is currently detained at St. Clair
County Jail in Belleville, Illinois. (Doc. 8, p. 1). He brings this pro se civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. Plaintiff claims that a Jail nurse administered him the wrong
medication on April 30, 2017. (Doc. 8, p. 5). In connection with this claim, Plaintiff seeks
money damages from the nurse (Nurse April), the medical provider (Wexford), and the Jail (St.
Clair County Jail). (Doc. 8, p. 9).
The First Amended Complaint is now before the Court for preliminary review 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
(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
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
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, 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).
First Amended Complaint
Plaintiff alleges that Nurse April gave him the wrong medication at the Jail on a single
occasion, i.e., at 9:37 a.m. on April 30, 2017. (Doc. 8, p. 5). When he realized the mistake,
Plaintiff “took the last pill out of [his] mouth” and informed the nurse about the error. Id. In
response, Nurse April asked Plaintiff if his name was “Steven Johnson.” Id. Another nurse then
checked Plaintiff’s blood pressure. Id. While doing so, she noticed his lips shaking. Id.
Plaintiff offers no other information in the First Amended Complaint about the medication, the
dosage, or other side effects. Id.
To facilitate the orderly management of future proceedings in this case, and in
accordance with the objectives of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(e) and 10(b), the Court
deems it appropriate to organize the claim in Plaintiff’s pro se First Amended Complaint into the
Count 1 -
Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendment claim against the defendants
for administering Plaintiff the wrong medication at the Jail on
April 30, 2017.
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 claim does not
constitute an opinion regarding its merits. Any other claims that are encompassed by the
allegations in the First Amended Complaint but not identified above fail to satisfy the
Twombly pleading standard and are considered dismissed without prejudice from this
The applicable legal standard for Plaintiff’s claim depends on his status as a pretrial
detainee or a convicted prisoner on April 30, 2017. Claims based on the denial of adequate
medical care arise under the Fourteenth Amendment when involving a pretrial detainee and the
Eighth Amendment when involving a prisoner. Weiss v. Cooley, 230 F.3d 1027, 1032 (7th Cir.
2000). The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits punishment of pretrial detainees, and the Eighth
Amendment prohibits the cruel and unusual punishment of prisoners. U.S. CONST. Amends. VIII
and XIV. With that said, the Seventh Circuit has “found it convenient and entirely appropriate to
apply the same standard to claims arising under the Fourteenth Amendment (detainees) and
Eighth Amendment (convicted prisoners) ‘without differentiation.’” Board v. Farnham, 394
F.3d 469, 478 (7th Cir. 2005) (quoting Henderson v. Sheahan, 196 F.3d 839, 845 n. 2 (7th Cir.
1999)). A constitutional claim arises in both contexts when a state actor responds to a plaintiff’s
serious medical needs with deliberate indifference. Pittman ex rel. Hamilton v. County of
Madison, Ill., 746 F.3d 766, 775 (7th Cir. 2014) (citing Brownell v. Figel, 950 F.2d 1285, 1289
(7th Cir. 1991)).
A § 1983 plaintiff claiming a violation of his constitutional rights based on the denial of
medical care must meet two requirements.
First, he must show that he suffered from an
objectively serious medical need (i.e., an objective standard). Pittman, 746 F.3d at 775 (citing
Collins v. Seeman, 462 F.3d 757, 760 (7th Cir. 2006)). See also Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645,
653 (7th Cir. 2005); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1970)).
Second, he must
demonstrate that the defendants responded to his serious medical needs with deliberate
indifference (i.e., a subjective standard). Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976).
The allegations in the First Amended Complaint offer no insight into the medical needs
of Plaintiff, let alone a medical need that would be considered objectively serious. Even if the
Court assumes that Plaintiff’s ingestion of the wrong medication on one occasion constitutes a
serious medical need, the First Amended Complaint still fails to satisfy the subjective component
of this claim.
To satisfy the subjective requirement, the allegations must suggest that prison officials
responded to the plaintiff’s serious medical needs with deliberate indifference. Greeno, 414 F.3d
at 653 (quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297 (1991)). This occurs when a defendant
knows of and disregards 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 by “‘draw[ing]
the inference.’” Id. (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834). Negligence, gross negligence, and even
“admitted medical malpractice” do not satisfy this standard. Norfleet v. Webster, 439 F.3d 392,
396 (7th Cir. 2006) (quoting Walker v. Benjamin, 293 F.3d 1030, 1037 (7th Cir. 2002)). In the
present case, the plaintiff must describe a substantial departure from accepted medical judgment,
practices, or standards. Sherrod v. Lingle, 223 F.3d 605, 610 (7th Cir. 2000). The allegations
must allow a plausible inference that Nurse April was deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk
of serious harm to Plaintiff. Thomas v. Cook Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 604 F.3d 293, 301 (7th Cir.
2010). This may occur when the failure to dispense the correct medication is deliberate and
potentially malicious. Gil v. Reed, 381 F.3d 649, 662 (7th Cir. 2004).
The allegations in the First Amended Complaint suggest no such thing. According to the
allegations, Nurse April inadvertently gave Plaintiff the wrong medication on a single occasion
on April 30, 2017. (Doc. 8, p. 5). The allegations do not suggest that she knew that Plaintiff
received the incorrect medication or wanted him to take the wrong medication. Id. Plaintiff
noticed the error and removed one pill from his mouth before swallowing it. Id. When he
pointed out the error, Nurse April made it clear that she thought he was another inmate. Id.
Plaintiff does not suggest that her manner, tone, or words were malicious or demonstrated any
recklessness to a known danger of harm to him. Bowers v. Seymour, 436 F. App’x 676 (7th Cir.
2011) (citing Quian v. Kautz, 168 F.3d 949, 955 (7th Cir. 1999)). At best, Plaintiff describes
negligence, which does not support a deliberate indifference claim. Greeno, 414 F.3d at 653
(citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834). See also Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 441 (7th Cir. 2010);
Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1374 (7th Cir. 1997).
The Seventh Circuit has held that the denial of proper medication on a single occasion,
standing alone, does not typically rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. Gil, 381
F.3d at 662 (citing Gutierrez, 111 F.3d at 1375). Although administering the wrong medication
may very well pose a substantial risk of harm under some circumstances, an “isolated instance[ ]
of neglect” in the course of treatment does not allow a plausible inference of deliberate
indifference. See Gutierrez, 111 F.3d at 1375; Robbins v. Pollard, 2016 WL 8672956, at *2
(E.D. Wis. 2016) (collecting cases).
In certain contexts, the administration of unneeded
medication over a long period of time may not even support an Eighth Amendment claim. See
Bowers, 436 F. App’x 676 (nurses who routinely provided inmate with unneeded anticonvulsant
medication three times each day for ten months were not deliberately indifferent to inmate’s
medical needs). Although the incident described in the First Amended Complaint is certainly
unfortunate, Plaintiff is not entitled to recover under § 1983 for the one-time occurrence.
Plaintiff’s claim against the Jail and Wexford also fail. The Jail is not a “person” subject
to suit under § 1983. Smith v. Knox Cnty. Jail, 666 F.3d 1037, 1040 (7th Cir. 2012); Powell v.
Cook Cnty. Jail, 814 F. Supp. 757, 758 (N.D. Ill. 1993). Likewise, no claim is stated against
Wexford, the private medical corporation that serves as the Jail’s healthcare provider. A private
corporation will generally only be held liable under § 1983 for an unconstitutional policy or
custom that results in the injury at issue. Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 780 (7th Cir. 2015)
(citing Woodward v. Corr. Med. Servs. of Ill., Inc., 368 F.3d 917, 927 (7th Cir. 2014)). No
policy or custom attributable to Wexford is mentioned in the First Amended Complaint.
For the reasons set forth herein, the First Amended Complaint states no claim against the
defendants and shall be dismissed. Further, Plaintiff will not be granted leave to file a third
complaint because such amendment would be futile in this particular case.
See Bogie v.
Rosenberg, 705 F.3d 603, 608 (7th Cir. 2013); Garcia v. City of Chicago, 24 F.3d 966, 970 (7th
Cir. 1994). See also Barry Aviation, Inc. v. Land O’Lakes Municipal Airport Comm’n, 377 F.3d
682, 687 (7th Cir. 2004) (leave to amend should be freely given “unless it is certain from the face
of the complaint that any amendment would be futile”). The dismissal of this § 1983 action shall
therefore be with prejudice.
Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 9) is DENIED. The second
motion presents the same problems as the first motion. (Doc. 3). It is denied for the same
reasons. (Doc. 6). The second motion, like the first, is largely blank. (Doc. 9, pp. 1-2). In
addition, Plaintiff failed to describe any steps he took to retain counsel before seeking the
Court’s assistance. (Doc. 9, p. 1). See also Navejar v. Iyiola, 718 F.3d 692, 696 (7th Cir. 2013)
(citing Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007)).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and this action
are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
This includes COUNT 1 against Defendants ST. CLAIR COUNTY JAIL, WEXFORD, and
LPN APRIL, which is DISMISSED with prejudice for the same reason.
Plaintiff is ADVISED that this dismissal shall count as one of his three allotted “strikes”
under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the filing fee for this
action was incurred at the time the action was filed, regardless of subsequent developments in the
Accordingly, the filing fee of $350.00 remains due and payable.
See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(1); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998).
If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this Order, he may file a notice of appeal with this Court
within thirty days of the entry of judgment. FED. R. APP. 4(A)(4). If Plaintiff does choose to
appeal, he will be liable for the $505.00 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the
appeal. See FED. R. APP. 3(e); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724, 72526 (7th Cir. 2008); Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 858-59 (7th Cir. 1999); Lucien, 133 F.3d at
467. Moreover, if the appeal is found to be nonmeritorious, Plaintiff may also incur another
“strike.” A proper and timely motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)
may toll the 30-day appeal deadline. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(4). A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed
no more than twenty-eight (28) days after the entry of judgment, and this 28-day deadline cannot
The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 13, 2018
s/J. Phil Gilbert
United States District Court
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?