Johnson v. Carter et al

Filing 13

OPINION AND ORDER: GRANTING Paul David Johnson leave to proceed against Dr. Carter in his individual capacity for compensatory and punitive for denying him adequate medical care on 3/18/2013, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; DISMISSING Cor rect Care Solutions; DISMISSING all other claims; DIRECTING the clerk to transmit the summons and USM-285 for Dr. Carter to the USMS along with a copy of the amended complaint 12 and this order, to effect service of process on Dr. Carter pursuant to 28: 1915(d); and ORDERING, pursuant to 42:1997e(g)(2), that Dr. Carter respond, as provided for in the Fed R Civ P and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claims for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 10/29/2015. (lhc)(cc: Pla and USMS (Dr. Carter))

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
PAUL DAVID JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. CARTER, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-122 RM

OPINION AND ORDER
Paul David Johnson, a pro se prisoner, filed an amended complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. (DE 12.) 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for the
dismissal of a complaint, or any portion of a complaint, for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. Courts apply the same standard under § 1915A as when
addressing a motion under Rule 12(b)(6). Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th
Cir. 2006). To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must state a
claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Bissessur v. Indiana Univ. Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d
599, 602-03 (7th Cir. 2009). In deciding whether the complaint states a claim, the court must
bear in mind that “[a] document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se
complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than

-1-

formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In order
to state a claim under § 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).
Mr. Johnson is an inmate at the Kosciusko County Jail. He alleges that in March
2013, he was being held at the Elkhart County Jail as a pretrial detainee. When Mr. Johnson
was booked into the Elkhart County Jail on March 9, 2013, he explained that he was allergic
to all penicillins. This was documented in Mr. Johnson’s medical records. On March 18,
2013, he saw the dentist, Dr. Carter, who was aware of Mr. Johnson’s allergy but
nevertheless prescribed him Amoxicillin, a form of penicillin. A few days later, Mr.
Johnson broke out in a rash, was in extreme pain, and had bloody stool, which he believes
all resulted from taking the medication. He experienced these conditions for months. Mr.
Johnson alleges that Dr. Carter’s prescribing him Amoxicillin violates the Eighth
Amendment. He has sued both Dr. Carter and his employer, Correct Care Solutions.
Because Mr. Johnson was a pretrial detainee, the Fourteenth rather than the Eighth
Amendment applies. Lewis v. Downey, 581 F.3d 467, 473-474 (7th Cir. 2009). The standards
are functionally equivalent, and “anything that would violate the Eighth Amendment
would also violate the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. at 475. A defendant violates an
inmate’s right to medical care under either Amendment when he is deliberately indifferent
to the plaintiff’s serious medical need. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-105 (1976).
Conduct is deliberately indifferent “when the official has acted in an intentional or

-2-

criminally reckless manner, i.e., the defendant must have known that the plaintiff was at
serious risk of being harmed and decided not to do anything to prevent that harm from
occurring even though he could have easily done so.” Board v. Farnham, 394 F.3d 469, 478
(7th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). For a medical professional to be 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).
Mr. Johnson alleges that Dr. Carter was aware of his allergy to penicillin but
nevertheless prescribed it for him anyway, which caused Mr. Johnson to suffer a rash,
bloody stools and extreme pain for months. Accepting his allegations as true, he has
alleged a plausible deliberate indifference claim, and he will be permitted to proceed
against Dr. Carter for damages.
Mr. Johnson also brings suit against Correct Care Solutions because it is Dr. Carter’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). Correct Care Solutions can’t be held liable solely because it is Dr.
Carter’s employer.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) GRANTS Paul David Johnson leave to proceed against Dr. Carter in his

-3-

individual capacity for compensatory and punitive for denying him adequate
medical care on March 18, 2013, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment;
(2) DISMISSES Correct Care Solutions;
(3) DISMISSES all other claims;
(4) DIRECTS the clerk to transmit the summons and USM-285 for Dr. Carter
to the United States Marshals Service along with a copy of the amended complaint
(DE 12) and this order;
(5) DIRECTS the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service of process on Dr.
Carter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); and
(6) ORDERS, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), that Dr. Carter respond, as
provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only
to the claims for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this
screening order.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: October 29 , 2015.

/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Judge
United States District Court

-4-