Bowie v. Warden et al
ORDER: The Complaint does not survive preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file a First Amended Complaint on or before May 26, 2021. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form. If Plaintiff fails to file his First Amended Complaint within the allotted time or consistent with the instructions set forth in this Order, the case will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order and/or for failure to prosecute his claims. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 4/26/2021. (ksp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ANTWYN BOWIE, #20-3066,
WARDEN OF VIENNA CORRECTIONAL )
KIMBERLY BIRCH, and
Case No. 3:21-cv-00205-SMY
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Plaintiff Antwyn Bowie, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections currently
incarcerated at Will County Adult Detention Facility, filed the instant lawsuit pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights at Vienna Correctional Center
(“Vienna”). This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Complaint under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the Court to screen prisoner Complaints to filter out
nonmeritorious claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of the Complaint that is legally
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or requests money damages from an immune
defendant must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the Complaint (Doc. 1):
incarcerated at Vienna between February 14, 2019 and March 23, 2020. While at Vienna, he was
prescribed Keppra for seizures, Prilosec for hypertension, Robaxin for muscle tension, and
Metoprolol for blood pressure. He had lab work done on June 10, 2019 and the results were
Sometime thereafter, Nurse Practitioner Darla Spain prescribed Levothyroxine for
hypertension and thyroid issues after reviewing the wrong file. After taking the Levothyroxine,
Plaintiff had multiple issues and reactions to the medication. Lab work was ordered on July 18,
2019 but a sticker was placed on the outpatient progress notes covering up part of the notes.
Plaintiff went to the health clinic on August 7, 2019 for issues he had since taking the
Levothyroxine including sleeping problems, high blood pressure, swallowing difficulty, stiff neck,
decreased range of motion in his neck, fever, chills, migraines, dizziness, vision problems, and
swollen glands, neck, and clavicle. An order was placed to check his blood pressure three times
per week for two weeks. An outpatient progress note was entered in his medical record on August
12, 2019 showing his TSH levels were normal and that following review of the lab results, the
medication was discontinued. According to the note, Plaintiff was scheduled to come in to discuss
the matter, but that was not done. He was not notified to stop taking the medication. When he
went to the pharmacy to have his prescriptions filled, the medication was refilled despite the note
to discontinue it.
Subsequently, Plaintiff was informed that the medication prescribed by Dr. Birch and NP
Spain was for his thyroid gland and was the cause of his problems. He was told that he should not
have been put on that medication because there was nothing wrong with his thyroid gland as
reflected by the June 10, 2019 lab work. He was also told that NP Spain stated she had looked at
the wrong chart.
Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court designates the following claim in this
pro se action:
Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs
claim against Dr. Birch and NP Spain for prescribing an unnecessary
medication that resulted in harm to Plaintiff and for not ensuring that
Plaintiff stopped taking the medication promptly following the lab
Any other claim that is mentioned in the Complaint and not addressed herein is dismissed without
prejudice as inadequately pled under the Twombly pleading standard. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (an action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face.”).
Additionally, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against the Warden of Vienna Correctional Center who
is not mentioned in the statement of claim. See Collins v. Kibort, 143 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir.
1998) (invoking a potential defendant’s name by listing that defendant in the case caption is not
enough to state a claim).
Prison officials and medical staff violate the Eight Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and
unusual punishment when they act with deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical
needs. Rasho v. Elyea, 856 F.3d 469, 475 (7th Cir. 2017). To state such a claim, a prisoner must
allege facts suggesting that (1) he suffered from an objectively serious medical condition, and (2)
the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs.
negligence or medical malpractice do not state an Eighth Amendment claim. See Gutierrez v.
Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1374 (7th Cir. 1997).
Plaintiff alleges NP Spain mistakenly prescribed the wrong medication. At another point,
he alleges generally that Dr. Birch and NP Spain prescribed the wrong medication. The allegation
that NP Spain prescribed medication after looking at the wrong file suggests possible negligence,
but not deliberate indifference. Plaintiff has not alleged facts that suggest Dr. Birch or NP Spain
were aware that Plaintiff had been prescribed the wrong medication and failed to take action to
rectify the situation. Nor does he allege that he complained to Dr. Birch or NP Spain about the
symptoms he allegedly began suffering after taking the medication. He does not state who he saw
at the health clinic on August 7, 2019 when he reported the medical issues he was having after
taking the medication. As such, the allegations in the Complaint fail to state a viable Eighth
Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim. Accordingly, the Complaint
will be dismissed and Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to file an amended complaint to replead his claims and include additional information.
The Complaint does not survive preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and is
DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff is GRANTED
leave to file a First Amended Complaint on or before May 26, 2021. The First Amended
Complaint will be subject to review under § 1915A.
Should Plaintiff file a First Amended Complaint, it is strongly recommended that he use
the civil rights complaint form designed for use in this District. He should label the form “First
Amended Complaint” and use the case number for this action (No. 21-205). Further, Plaintiff
should identify each defendant in the case caption and include sufficient allegations against each
defendant to describe what the defendant did or failed to do to violate his constitutional rights, see
DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d 624, 627 (7th Cir. 1990) (a successful complaint generally
alleges “the who, what, when, where, and how ....”), and as much as possible, include the relevant
facts in chronological order, inserting each defendant’s name where necessary to identify the actors
and each defendant’s actions. To facilitate Plaintiff’s compliance with this Order, the Clerk of
Court is DIRECTED to mail Plaintiff a 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
(7th Cir. 2004). Therefore, the Court will not accept piecemeal amendments to the original
Complaint – the First Amended Complaint must stand on its own, without reference to any
previous pleading, and Plaintiff must re-file any relevant exhibits he wishes the Court to consider.
If Plaintiff fails to file his First Amended Complaint within the allotted time or consistent
with the instructions set forth in this Order, the case will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to
comply with a court order and/or for failure to prosecute his claims. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); 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). The dismissal will count as one of Plaintiff’s three allotted “strikes” under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Plaintiff is ADVISED that if judgment is rendered against him and the judgment includes
the payment of costs under 28 U.S.C. §1915, he 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.
Plaintiff is further ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of
Court and the 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: April 26, 2021
s/ Staci M. Yandle_____
STACI M. YANDLE
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?