Raggs v. Lawson
Filing
4
OPINION AND ORDER DIRECTING Clerk to place this cause number on a blank Prisoner Complaint 42 U.S.C. § 1983 form and send it to Pla; GRANTING Pla until 1/7/2016, to file an Amended Complaint; CAUTIONING Pla that if he does not respond by that ddl, this case will be dismissed as outlined. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 11/10/2015. (cc: Pla)(lns)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
ERIQUE DOMINOE RAGGS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JULIE LAWSON,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:15-CV-526 JD
OPINION AND ORDER
Erique Dominoe Raggs, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint alleging that he has been
coughing up blood since October 11, 2015, and has been denied medical treatment at the St. Joseph
County Jail where he is housed. “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 formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations
omitted). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the merits of a
prisoner complaint.
Raggs alleges that despite having told several guards and nurses about his condition, the only
response has been to put him in a different cell and to take a specimen for testing. In medical cases,
the Constitution is violated only when a defendant was deliberately indifferent to an inmate’s serious
medical needs. Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1369 (7th Cir. 1997). “[C]onduct is deliberately
indifferent when the official has acted in an intentional or 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) (quotation marks, brackets, and citation
omitted).
Here, the only defendant listed in the complaint is Warden Julie Lawson. Raggs alleges that
“[s]he hasn’t done anything about the rights of mine her staff violated while I was going through this
medical emergency.” DE 1 at 4. He does not allege that she violated his rights, only that she
supervised employees who did. However, there is no general respondeat superior liability under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, so the allegation that someone else knew about his need for medical treatment does
not state a claim against her. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007). “[P]ublic
employees are responsible for their own misdeeds but not for anyone else’s.” Burks v. Raemisch,
555 F.3d 592, 596 (7th Cir. 2009). Thus, this complaint does not state a claim.
Nevertheless, it is possible that if Raggs named other defendants and explained what he told
them about his need for medical treatment as well as how they responded and what injury he
suffered as a result, he might be able to state a claim against one of those jail employees. Therefore
he will be granted the opportunity to file an amended complaint. See Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d
1014 (7th Cir. 2013).
For these reasons, the court:
(1) DIRECTS the clerk to place this cause number on a blank Prisoner Complaint 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 form and send it to Erique Dominoe Raggs;
(2) GRANTS Erique Dominoe Raggs until January 7, 2016, to file an amended complaint;
and
2
(3) CAUTIONS Erique Dominoe Raggs that if he does not respond by that deadline, this
case will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the current complaint (DE 1) does
not state a claim.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: November 10, 2015
/s/ JON E. DEGUILIO
Judge
United States District Court
3
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?