Hamilton v. The Bantry Group Corporation(s)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

KENNETH HAMILTON, )

# R12594, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case No. 19-CV-0450-SMY

vs. )

)

VENERIO SANTOS, and )

WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

YANDLE, District Judge:

Plaintiff Kenneth Hamilton, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections, brings

this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights.

Plaintiff claims that while he was incarcerated at Centralia Correctional Center, he did not receive

adequate medical care for injuries due to his allergy to wool blankets. (Doc. 8). He seeks monetary

damages and injunctive relief.

This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Amended Complaint1 under

28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the Court to screen prisoner Complaints to filter out

nonmeritorious claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of the Complaint that is legally

frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or requests money damages from an immune

defendant must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

The Amended Complaint

Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the Amended Complaint (Doc 8): Plaintiff was

1 The Complaint did not survive § 1915A review and was dismissed without prejudice with leave to file an Amended

Complaint. (Doc. 7).

issued a wool blanket despite an allergy to wool. He met with Dr. Venerio Santos several times

seeking treatment for complications due to his wool blanket allergy. He showed Dr. Santos rashes

and blisters on his body caused by the wool blanket. Dr. Santos did not prescribe any medication

for the rashes, blisters, or pain.

Plaintiff filed a grievance describing his allergy to wool blankets and requesting a cotton

blanket or any other a non-wool blanket. His grievance was ignored and/or mishandled by Rollins,

Walker, and Mueller. However, Assistant Warden of Programs Dave Stock wrote a memorandum

ordering that Plaintiff be provided with a cotton blanket. Despite this directive, it took weeks for

Plaintiff to receive a cotton blanket.

Plaintiff forwarded his grievance to the Administrative Review Board (“ARB”). ARB

member Debbie Knauer parroted the responses to his grievance provided at the institutional level

and stated he could request assistance from the healthcare unit as needed. John Baldwin signed

off on the ARB’s response.

Preliminary Dismissals

Although named as a defendant, there are no allegations in the statement of claim against

Wexford Health Sources, Inc. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a Complaint must include

a short, plain statement of the case against each defendant. Merely naming a party in the caption

of a Complaint is not sufficient to state a claim against that individual or entity. Collins v. Kibort,

143 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc. will be

dismissed without prejudice.

Additionally, Plaintiff makes allegations against ARB member Debbie Knauer, IDOC

Director John Baldwin, Rollins, Walker, and Mueller, but those individuals are not identified as

defendants in the case caption. The Court will not treat individuals not listed in the caption as

defendants, and any intended claims against those individuals are considered dismissed without

prejudice. Myles v. United States, 416 F.3d 551, 551–52 (7th Cir. 2005) (holding that to be

properly considered a party, a defendant must be specified in the caption).

Discussion

Based on the allegations in the Amended Complaint, the Court designates the following

single Count:2

Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Santos for exhibiting

deliberate indifference to a serious medical need related to

Plaintiff’s wool blanket allergy.

Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim against Dr.

Santos.

Disposition

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Count 1 will proceed against Defendant Venerio

Santos. Defendant Wexford Health Sources Inc. is DISMISSED without prejudice and the Clerk

of Court is DIRECTED to TERMINATE it as a party.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendant

Venerios Santos: (1) Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons),

and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service of Summons). The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail these forms,

a copy of the Amended Complaint, and this Memorandum and Order to Defendant’s place of

employment as identified by Plaintiff. If Defendant fails to sign and return the Waiver of Service

of Summons (Form 6) to the Clerk within 30 days from the date the forms were sent, the Clerk

2 Any other claim that is mentioned in the Amended Complaint but not addressed in this Order

should be considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under the Twombly pleading

standard. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (An action fails to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim that is plausible on its

face.”).

shall take appropriate steps to effect formal service on Defendant, and the Court will require

Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure.

If Defendant cannot be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff, the employer shall

furnish the Clerk with the Defendant’s current work address, or, if not known, the Defendant’s

last-known address. This information shall be used only for sending the forms as directed above

or for formally effecting service. Any documentation of the address shall be retained only by the

Clerk. Address information shall not be maintained in the court file or disclosed by the Clerk.

Defendant is ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the

Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). Pursuant to

Administrative Order No. 244, Defendant need only respond to the issues stated in this Merit

Review Order.

If judgment is rendered against Plaintiff, and the judgment includes the payment of costs

under Section 1915, Plaintiff will be required to pay the full amount of the costs, regardless of

whether his application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)(A).

Finally, Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of

Court and the opposing party informed of any change in his address; the Court will not

independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later than 7 days

after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this order will cause a

delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in dismissal of this action for want of

prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 1, 2020

s/ Staci M. Yandle_________

STACI M. YANDLE

United States District Judge

Notice to Plaintiff

The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the Defendant of your lawsuit and serve

him with a copy of your Amended Complaint. After service has been achieved, Defendant will

enter his appearance and file an Answer to your Amended Complaint. It will likely take at least

60 days from the date of this Order to receive Defendant’s Answer, but it is entirely possible that

it will take 90 days or more. When Defendant has filed an Answer, the Court will enter a

Scheduling Order containing important information on deadlines, discovery, and procedures.

Plaintiff is advised to wait until counsel has appeared for Defendant before filing any motions, to

give Defendant notice and an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed before

Defendant’s counsel has filed an appearance will generally be denied as premature. Plaintiff need

not submit any evidence to the Court at this time, unless specifically directed to do so.