Kampwerth v. Madison County Jail
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Amended Complaint (Doc. 10) and COUNT 1 are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MADISON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, SHERIFF LAKIN, CAPTAIN BOSS, CAPTAIN JOSEPH, JANE DOE, and ROBERT BLANKENSHIP are DISMISSED from this action without prejudice 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, Pla intiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint, stating any facts which may exist to support a cognizable § 1983 claim, within 28 days of the entry of this order (on or before May 14, 2018). (Amended Pleadings due by 5/14/2018). Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 4/16/2018. (tjk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MADISON COUNTY SHERIFF’S
Case No. 18−cv–11−JPG
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT, District Judge:
Plaintiff William Kampwerth, an inmate in Madison County Jail, brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights.
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff claims the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious
medical needs. (Doc. 10). This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
Amended 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
(b) Grounds for Dismissal – On review, the court shall identify
cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the
(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).
Upon careful review of the Amended Complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court
finds that the Amended Complaint is subject to summary dismissal.
The Amended Complaint
In his Amended Complaint (Doc. 10), Plaintiff makes the following allegations: Plaintiff
came from the Illinois Department of Corrections December 22, 2014 to February 5, 2015.
(Doc. 10, p. 6). He was on Risperdol, which did not work for him. Id. Plaintiff told the nurses,
but they told him his Invega shot was over two months old and refused to give it to him. Id.
They did this despite knowing that he needs his Invega shot “[f]rom when [he] hung [himself] in
2013 they gave it to [him] and sent [him] to prison where [their] medicine did not work.” Id.
“The doctor, Sheriff, and Captain denied [Plaintiff his] shot . . . until after [he] hung
[himself] and was strapped to the chair.” Id. Plaintiff was then found “unfit” and he was sent to
Chester. Id. Now, he is “back and getting [his] shot.” Id. Plaintiff “was in the chair for 8 days
and [his] feet swelled up from 11 to 15 inch sandals. [He] was barely eating.” (Doc. 10, p. 7).
The Doctor told him that he would get Plaintiff his shot if he got out of the chair. Id. The
Sheriff, Captain Joseph, Dr. Robert Blankenship, and Nurse Jane Doe “all knew.” Id. Captain
Boss “knew from what happened in 2013 when [Plaintiff] first hung [himself].” Id.
Plaintiff requests monetary damages from the defendants. (Doc. 10, p. 8).
The Court will begin its discussion of Plaintiff’s claims with a word about the parties.
Plaintiff failed to include allegations against the Madison County Sheriff’s Department in his
statement of claim, despite the requirement that plaintiffs associate specific defendants with
specific claims, so that defendants are put on notice of the claims brought against them and so
they can properly answer the complaint. See Twombly, 550 at 555; FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2).
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). Plaintiff has failed to state
a claim against Madison County Sheriff’s Department for this reason, so it will be dismissed
from this action without prejudice.
Moving to the allegations of the Amended Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to
designate a single new 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 in violation of the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment by failing to
give him his shot of Invega.
As discussed in more detail below, Count 1 will be dismissed without prejudice 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.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, in order to state a claim, a pleading must
provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(1). “Rule 8(a) requires parties to make their pleadings straightforward, so
that judges and adverse parties need not try to fish a gold coin from a bucket of mud.” United
States ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003). Although a
district court is “not authorized to dismiss a complaint merely because it contains repetitious and
irrelevant matter, . . . dismissal of a complaint on the ground that it is unintelligible is
unexceptional. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, at times, is unreadable due to the quality of the
photocopying.1 See (Doc. 10, p. 6). It is also disjointed and difficult to follow. Instead of
providing a clear, chronological recitation of the facts and including allegations describing the
involvement of the named defendants, the Amended Complaint jumps around and discusses the
involvement of the defendants in very general, somewhat confusing terms.
As noted above, 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.” Twombly, 550 U.S.
The claim of entitlement to relief must cross “the line between possibility and
plausibility.” Id. at 557. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not cross this threshold. The
allegations do not clearly establish what Plaintiff’s medical need is, so the Court is left to guess
the reason Plaintiff needs an Invega shot. The defendants would face this same question if this
case proceeded past threshold. The allegations are also so vague and devoid of context that the
court cannot infer the state of mind of any of the named defendants or consider whether their
Along with implicating Rule 8, the illegibility of portions of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint flouts this Court’s
local rules. All pleadings presented for filing in this District must be “plainly typewritten, printed, or prepared by a
clearly legible duplication process and double-spaced.” See SDIL-LR 5.1(b).
actions were reasonable under the circumstances. For this reason, the Amended Complaint will
be dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Amended Complaint (Doc. 10) and COUNT 1 are
DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
DEPARTMENT, SHERIFF LAKIN, CAPTAIN BOSS, CAPTAIN JOSEPH, JANE DOE,
and ROBERT BLANKENSHIP are DISMISSED from this action without prejudice 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 Second Amended Complaint, stating any facts which may exist to support a
cognizable § 1983 claim, within 28 days of the entry of this order (on or before May 14, 2018).
Should Plaintiff fail to file his Second 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 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) because Plaintiff
has thus far failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted in this case.
Should Plaintiff decide to file a Second 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,
“Second Amended Complaint,” and he should use the case number for this action (i.e. 18-cv-11JPG). The pleading shall present each claim in a separate count, and each count shall specify, by
name, the 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 one another will be severed into
new cases, new case numbers will be assigned, and additional filing fees will be assessed.
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
Second 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 Second
The Second 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 Second 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 Second 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: April 16, 2018
s/J. Phil Gilbert
United States District Judge
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?