Custer v. Powers

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JOHN CUSTER, )

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 23-1145

)

DIANA POWERS, et al., )

Defendants. )

MERIT REVIEW ORDER

JAMES E. SHADID, U.S. District Judge:

This cause is before the Court for merit review of Plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc. 1).

The Court is required by 28 U.S.C. §1915A to “screen” Plaintiff’s complaint, and

through such process to identify and 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.” § 1915A.

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has identified eight Defendants at the Peoria County

Jail, including Diana Powers, Dr. Gladney Duran, Brad Johnson, Commessa Turner,

Nurse Practitioner Carey, and Nurses Rhonda, Paula, and Britney. However, it is

difficult to discern the specific basis of Plaintiff’s claims due to his illegible handwriting.

From what the Court can discern, Plaintiff says he has been in a “medical battle”

with Defendant Powers for three months because she allegedly instructed a nurse

practitioner and Defendant Duran not to treat him. Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from

numerous mental and physical conditions including, among others, kidney disease,

hypertension, degenerative disk disease, and PTSD.

Plaintiff also alleges he was severely wounded by staff at the Jail on November 3

and that Defendants Powers, Nurse Rhonda, and Nurse Britney saw the severe

lacerations and bruises on his hands. Plaintiff does not indicate what year his injuries

occurred. Defendant Powers allegedly laughed and said the wounds were “scabbing up

nicely.” Plaintiff claims Defendant Powers tried to conceal the beating. Plaintiff states

Defendant Powers ordered an x-ray, which revealed Plaintiff had no broken bones.

However, Plaintiff alleges he has severe nerve damage.

Plaintiff also states he requires a “no salt low cholesterol” diet. Plaintiff claims

four doctors and his cardiologist recommended this special diet, but Defendant Powers

refuses to provide it. Plaintiff asserts Defendant Powers is trying to kill him because she

fed him chips.

The remaining allegations are extremely difficult to read due to Plaintiff’s

handwriting. Unfortunately, Plaintiff does not provide specific dates for all his

allegations. In addition, Plaintiff does not explain how each of the named Defendants

were involved. See Kuhn v. Milwaukee County, 59 F. App'x 148, 150 (7th Cir. 2003)

(merely naming defendants in caption of complaint does not state claim against them).

To hold Defendants liable under § 1983, Plaintiff must “show that the defendants

were personally responsible for the deprivation of [his] rights.” Wilson v. Warren Cnty.,

Illinois, 830 F.3d 464, 469 (7th Cir. 2016). “A defendant is personally responsible ‘if the

conduct causing the constitutional deprivation occurs at his direction or with his

knowledge and consent.’” Id. (quoting Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561 (7th Cir.

1995)). In addition, the mere fact that a defendant was a supervisor is insufficient to

establish liability because the doctrine of respondeat superior (supervisor liability) does

not apply to actions filed under § 1983. See Smith v. Gomez, 550 F.3d 613, 616 (7th Cir.

2008) (supervisor liability not permitted under § 1983); Pacelli v. DeVito, 972 F.2d 871,

877 (7th Cir. 1992) (supervisors are not liable for the errors of subordinates).

In short, Plaintiff’s complaint does not provide the Court or the potential

Defendants with adequate notice of his claims. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 states

a complaint must include “a short and plan statement of the claim showing the pleader

is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The purpose of this rule is to “give

defendants fair notice of the claims against them and the grounds for supporting the

claims.” Stanard v. Nygren, 658 F.3d 792, 797 (7th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted); Bell

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Therefore, Plaintiff must clearly state

his claims, including who was involved and when the allegations took place. This is

particularly important because Plaintiff has filed nearly forty lawsuits concerning the

Jail since August of 2021, including sixteen lawsuits since January 2023. Many of

Plaintiff’s complaints include the same Defendants, and Plaintiff is admonished he must

not repeat the same claims against the same individuals in separate lawsuits.

Furthermore, Plaintiff must clearly state his claims so the Court can determine whether

Plaintiff’s claims in this case overlap with his other pending lawsuits.

Plaintiff’s compliant is dismissed as a violation of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 8. The Court will allow Plaintiff one opportunity to file an amended

complaint clarifying his claims, but Plaintiff is advised that his handwriting MUST be

legible. His amended complaint MUST clearly state what happened, when it happened,

which Defendants were involved, how each Defendant was involved, and any harm

Plaintiff suffered. Plaintiff MUST also provide the date each allegation occurred or a

specific timeframe.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1) Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed as a violation of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 8.

2) The Court will allow Plaintiff one opportunity to file an amended complaint

clarifying his claims. Plaintiff must file his proposed amended complaint within

30 days of this Order and follow the Court's directions concerning the

information to provide in his amended complaint.

3) If Plaintiff fails to file his amended complaint within 30 days or fails to follow

the Court's directions, his case will be dismissed.

ENTERED: 5/25/23

s/James E. Shadid

_________________________________________

JAMES E. SHADID

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE