Edwards v. Calloway

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

DENNIS J. EDWARDS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No.: 23-2015-CSB

)

)

J. EK, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MERIT REVIEW ORDER

COLIN S. BRUCE, U.S. District Judge:

Plaintiff Dennis J. Edwards, proceeding pro se, is an IDOC inmate who is

currently being housed at the IDOC’s Danville Correctional Center (“Danville”). The

Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and the case is now before the

Court for a merit review of Plaintiff’s claims contained within his Complaint. The Court

is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to “screen” a plaintiff’s complaint and, through such

process, to identify and to dismiss any legally insufficient claim or the entire action if

warranted. A claim is legally insufficient if it “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant

who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

In reviewing the complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as true,

liberally construing them in the plaintiff’s favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th

Cir. 2013). However, conclusory statements and labels are insufficient. Enough facts

must be provided to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Alexander v.

U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(citation omitted).

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Therefore, the Court will dismiss his Complaint

The problem with Plaintiff’s Complaint is not that he may not possess a claim

upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff may, in fact, possess a claim for deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.

The problem is that Plaintiff has not named a proper Defendant, at least not a

Defendant who was (allegedly) personally involved in depriving him of his

Constitutional rights.

Plaintiff has named four Defendants in his Complaint. As for the Administrative

Review Board (“ARB”), the ARB is not a person who is amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Jordan v. Lashbrook, 2019 WL 1282327, * 3 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 20, 2019)(citing Toledo,

Peoria & Wester R. Co. v. State of Ill. Dep’t of Transp., 744 F.2d 1296, 1298 (7th Cir. 1984).

Therefore, the ARB is not a proper Defendant to this suit.

As for Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (“Wexford”), Wexford is a private

corporation. Thus, Wexford can only be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if it had an

unconstitutional policy or practice which caused the alleged Constitutional

deprivation. Woodward v. Correctional Med. Servs. of Ill., Inc., 368 F.3d 917, 927 (7th Cir.

2004); Monell v. Department of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Plaintiff

has not alleged any facts that would demonstrate that Wexford maintained an

unconstitutional policy or practice that violated his Constitutional rights. Therefore,

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim against Wexford upon which relief can be

granted.

Finally, Plaintiff has named Dr. J. Ek and Danville Warden Felicia Adkins as

party Defendants. However, Plaintiff has not alleged facts demonstrating that they were

personally involved in depriving Plaintiff of any Constitutional right. To be held liable

under § 1983, an individual must be personally involved in the actions or inactions that

violated the plaintiff’s Constitutional rights. Minix v. Canarecci, 597 F.3d 824, 833 (7th Cir.

2010)(“[I]ndividual liability under § 1983 requires personal involvement in the alleged

constitutional deprivation.”)(internal quotation omitted). Both Dr. Ek and Warden

Adkins were late arrivals to the ten-year tale of the neglect of his double hernia alleged

by Plaintiff. But according to Plaintiff, Dr. Ek approved his hernia surgery, and he has

not alleged any facts showing the Warden Adkins interfered with or was involved in

the delay of his hernia surgery.

Instead, it appears that Plaintiff sued Dr. Ek and Warden Adkins because they

were “in charge” when he filed his Complaint. As noted above, simply being in charge

is not a basis upon which to hold a defendant liable under § 1983. Gayton v. McCoy, 593

F.3d 610, 622 (7th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim

against Dr. Ek and Warden Adkins upon which relief can be granted.

Nevertheless, the Court will give Plaintiff an opportunity to try to amend his

Complaint in order to state a claim upon which relief can be granted before dismissing

this case. Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1024 (7th Cir. 2013)(citing Alioto

v. Town of Lisbon, 651 F.3d 715, 721 (7th Cir. 2011)(“[A] plaintiff ordinarily retains the

ability to amend his complaint once as a matter of right, even after a court grants a

motion to dismiss.”)). If he files an amended complaint, Plaintiff must allege facts

demonstrating who violated his Constitutional rights and how that person(s) violated

his Constitutional rights. Plaintiff may not simply set forth a litany of wrongs

committed against him without any factual context to his assertions, nor may he simply

submit grievances in lieu of an amended complaint.

Moreover, Plaintiff may not allege unrelated claims in a single amended

complaint. If his claims are unrelated to one another, Plaintiff must assert those claims

in separate suits.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed because it fails to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6).

2. Plaintiff is given leave to file a proposed amended complaint that

complies with the dictates of this Order.

3. Plaintiff should file his proposed amended complaint within thirty (30)

days from the date of this Order.

4. If Plaintiff fails to do so timely, the Court will dismiss this case.

Entered this 6th day of March, 2023

_____ /s Colin S. Bruce____________________

COLIN S. BRUCE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE