Juarez-Cabrera v. St Joseph Hospital et al
Filing
4
OPINION AND ORDER STRIKING 1 Pro Se Complaint filed by Luis A Juarez-Cabrera. Clerk DIRECTED to place this cause number on a blank 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Complaint form and forward it to Plaintiff. Plaintiff GRANTED until 1/15/2015 to file an Amended Complaint. Plaintiff CAUTIONED if he does not respond by the deadline, this case will be dismissed without further notice. Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 12/15/14. (cer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
LUIS JUAREZ-CABRERA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL, et al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Cause No. 1:14-CV-370
OPINION AND ORDER
The Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [ECF No. 1 ] on
November 25, 2014. The suit alleges that an unidentified nurse and her employer, St. Joseph
Hospital, failed to provide the Plaintiff with proper medical treatment following his arrest on
December 11, 2012. For the following reasons, the Court strikes the Plaintiff’s complaint and grants
the Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must review a prisoner complaint and dismiss it
if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Under federal pleading
standards:
a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 672 (2009) (quotation marks and internal citations omitted).
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of the cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
1
statements, do not suffice.” Id. at 678. To survive dismissal, the plaintiff “must do better than putting
a few words on paper that, in the hands of an imaginative reader, might suggest that something has
happened to [the plaintiff] that might be redressed by the law.” Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d
400, 403 (7th Cir. 2010) (emphasis in original). Furthermore, to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 “a plaintiff must allege: (1) that defendants deprived him of a federal constitutional right; and
(2) that the defendants acted under color of state law.” Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir.
2006).
The Plaintiff alleges that on December 11, 2012, he was injured while being arrested and was
subsequently taken to St. Joseph Hospital to receive medical attention. According to the Plaintiff,
once he arrived at St. Joseph Hospital, an unidentified nurse discharged him without providing
medical assistance or treatment for his injuries. He was then taken to the Allen County Jail, where
he was inspected by a jail nurse. The Plaintiff complained to the nurse that he was feeling worse,
and the nurse noticed swelling on his head. The jail nurse requested for the Plaintiff to be taken to
Parkview Hospital. At Parkview Hospital, a CT scan was performed, which revealed that the
Plaintiff had three facial fractures.
The Plaintiff asserts that the unidentified nurse denied him proper medical care. Because
the Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at all times relevant to this lawsuit, the Fourteenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution, rather than the Eighth Amendment, applies here. Lewis v. Downey,
581 F.3d 467, 473–74 (7th Cir. 2009). However, both standards are functionally equivalent, and
“anything that would violate the Eighth Amendment would also violate the Fourteenth
Amendment.” Id. at 475. Under either the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment, inmates are entitled
to adequate medical care. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). To establish liability, a
2
prisoner must show that: (1) he or she had an objectively serious medical need; and (2) the defendant
acted with deliberate indifference to that need. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). A
medical need is “serious” if it is one that “a physician has diagnosed as mandating treatment or one
that is so obvious that even a lay person would perceive the need for a doctor’s attention.” Greeno
v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2005). Deliberate indifference is a high standard, and is
“something approaching a total unconcern for a prisoner’s welfare in the face of serious risks,” or
a “conscious, culpable refusal” to prevent harm. Duane v. Lane, 959 F.2d 673, 677 (7th Cir. 1992).
For a medical professional to be held liable for deliberate indifference to an inmate’s medical needs,
he or she must make a decision that represents “such a substantial departure from accepted
professional judgment, practice, or standards, as to demonstrate that the person responsible actually
did not base the decision on such a judgment.” Jackson v. Kotter, 541 F.3d 688, 697 (7th Cir. 2008).
The Plaintiff has pled that he had an objectively serious medical need: three facial fractures.
However, the complaint lacks sufficient facts to adequately plead that the unidentified nurse
exhibited deliberate indifference. In fact, aside from claiming that the unidentified nurse discharged
the Plaintiff, the complaint is silent as to what transpired while the Plaintiff was at St. Joseph
Hospital.
The Plaintiff also claims that he did not receive proper medical attention from the
unidentified nurse on account of his race. He states that he “feel[s] discriminated” by the nurse for
being Hispanic, and for being in handcuffs on his way to jail. [ECF No. 1 at 4.] However, in order
to proceed on the Plaintiff’s claim, the complaint must plausibly allege that the Defendants “acted
with a nefarious discriminatory purpose” and “discriminated against [the plaintiff] based on his
membership in a definable class.” Nabozny v. Podlesny, 226 F.3d 558, 564 (7th Cir. 1996) (citations
3
omitted); see also Sow v. Fortville Police Dep’t, 636 F.3d 293, 303 (7th Cir. 2011). The Plaintiff’s
complaint does not include any factual basis from which a discriminatory purpose could plausibly
be inferred. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (“[A] plaintiff’s
obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and
conclusions); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556) (“[W]here the well-pleaded
facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint
has alleged – but it has not shown – that the pleader is entitled to relief.”). When a complaint is
vague or lacking in necessary detail, the Court is “within its rights” to dismiss the complaint with
leave to replead. Loubser v. Thacker, 440 F.3d 439, 443 (7th Cir. 2006); see also Brooks v. Ross,
578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009).
Lastly, the Plaintiff’s complaint names as a defendant St. Joseph Hospital, based on it being
the unidentified nurse’s employer. Like a municipal entity, a corporate entity acting under color of
state law cannot be held liable based solely on a theory of respondeat superior. Monell v. N.Y. City
Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Woodward v. Corr. Med. Servs. of Ill., Inc., 368 F.3d 917,
927 (7th Cir. 2004). Thus, St. Joseph Hospital cannot be held liable solely because it is the
unidentified nurse’s employer.
Therefore, the Court will permit the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that sets forth his
claim against the unidentified nurse in sufficient detail. In the amended complaint, the Plaintiff must
explain how the actions or inactions of the unidentified nurse created liability under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. This entails an explanation of what took place during his visit to the St. Joseph Hospital on
December 11, 2012, including his interaction with the unidentified nurse. The Plaintiff should
explain what physical conditions he complained of, who he made those complaints to, and what was
4
done to treat him. He should detail any conversations that occurred between himself and the
unidentified nurse, any examinations that took place while he was at St. Joseph Hospital, as well as
any additional interaction he had with other medical professionals while there.
Moreover, as indicated above, the Plaintiff apparently does not know the identity of the nurse
who discharged him, as he identifies her only as “Unknown Nurse.” As a practical matter his case
cannot proceed against an unnamed defendant. See Wudtke v. Davel, 128 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir.
1997) (“[I]t is pointless to include lists of anonymous defendants in federal court; this type of
placeholder does not open the door to relation back under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 15, nor
can it otherwise help the plaintiff.”). In his amended complaint, the Plaintiff must include any
information he can provide that may assist in identifying the nurse, including a physical description.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court:
(1) STRIKES the complaint (ECF No. 1);
(2) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to place this cause number on a blank prisoner
Complaint 42 U.S.C. § 1983 form and send it to the Plaintiff;
(3) GRANTS the Plaintiff until January 15, 2015 to file an amended complaint; and
(4) CAUTIONS the Plaintiff that if he does not respond by the above deadline, this case will
be dismissed without further notice.
SO ORDERED on December 15, 2014.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
5
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?