Sims v. Wexford Medical

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ARDAMIS DARRELL SIMS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 20-cv-335-NJR

)

)

WEXFORD MEDICAL, CHRISTOPHER )

BROWN, THERAPIST DAN, A. )

HAGGARD, A. LOOS, J. SMITH, S. )

MERCIER, MS. DEMSAR, TRAVIS )

BAYLER, JOHN R. BALDWIN, LT. )

MILLER, JOHN/JANE DOE MEDICAL )

PERSONNEL, SCOBI THOMPSON, and )

K. JAIMET, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROSENSTENGEL,ChiefJudge:

Plaintiff Ardamis Darrell Sims, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections

(“IDOC”) who is currently incarcerated at Danville Correctional Center, brings this action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights while at Pinckneyville

Correctional Center (“Pinckneyville”). Plaintiff alleges he was served unsanitary foodin violation

of the Eighth Amendment and state law. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. When Plaintiff filed

his Complaint, a portion of his exhibits and allegations were inadvertently left off of his Complaint

(SeeDocs. 6 and 7). On April 16, 2020, the Court filed those exhibits.

This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1915A.Under Section1915A, the Court is required to screen prisoner complaints to filter

out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a). Any portion of a complaint that is legally

frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks for money

damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C.

§1915A(b).

The Complaint

Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the Complaint: Plaintiff was housed at

Pinckneyville from March 29, 2018 until June 6, 2019.While at the prison, he consumed donated

food from an unsanitary kitchen where workers wore dirty uniforms, did not wear proper aprons

and hair nets, and servedfood without sanitary gloves (Doc. 1,pp. 8-9).He maintains that the food

had mold on it and/or was beyond the best used by date (Id. at pp. 8 and 10). He informed

Lieutenant Smith, but he only told him he could dump his tray. As a result of eating moldy food

he developed diarrhea and vomiting (Id. at pp. 8 and 10). He wrote a grievance but was told that

Pinckneyville no longer accepts donated foods, the best by dates on the foods did not mean they

were expired, and the items were extras beyond the daily calorie requirements (Id. at p. 8). He

alleges that D. Hess, A. Haggard and A. Loos processed false reports in response to his grievance.

They respondedthat his allegations were not truewhen they knew that Pinckneyville never stopped

serving donated food(Id.). Grievance officials and the Administrative Review Board,including S.

Mercier, Scobi Thompson, Travis Bayler, and John R. Baldwin, conspired to cover up the issue

by denying his grievances and deeming them not emergencies (Id.). Ms. Demsar, the food

supervisor, approved of inmate workers using unsanitary conditions, specifically allowing inmates

touse cotton jersey gloves (Id. at p. 9).Plaintiff informed Miller about Ms. Demsar’s actions, but

he said he did not care and to either take his tray or sit down (Id.). He alleges that Defendants

breached their state law duty to provide safe and sanitary meals (Id. at p. 10).

Preliminary Dismissals

Plaintiff identifies Christine Brown, Dr. Myers,1 Therapist Dan, Wexford Medical, K.

Jaimet, and John/Jane Doe Medical Personnel in the caption of his Complaint but fails to include

any allegations against them in the statement of his claim. Plaintiff filed two cases in this district

court, this case and Sims v. Thompson, Case No. 20-cv-336-SMY. When initially filed, only a

portion of Plaintiff’s exhibits were filed in this case. After Plaintiff submitted a letter inquiring

about the exhibits (Doc. 6), the exhibits were subsequently filed in this case (Doc. 7). Those

exhibits include an additional statement of fact which includes allegations against Brown, Myers,

Therapist Dan, Wexford, and John/Jane Doe Medical Personnel (Id.). Those allegations are

duplicative of the allegations raised in Plaintiff’s other case (See Sims v. Thompson, Case No. 20-

cv-336-SMY, Doc. 1, pp. 29-33).Although included as an exhibit in this case, they are not part of

the original statement of the claim and are the subject of his other pending lawsuit.As such, these

Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudicein this case.

Plaintiff also refers to John and Jane Doe officials who oversee the contracts with

companies providing the prison with food, alleging that they breached their duty in providing safe

and sanitary meals (Doc. 1, p. 10).But he fails to provide any identifying information or even the

number of unknown individuals involved. To state a Section 1983 claim against an individual or

entity, Plaintiff must specifically identify them, by name or Doe designation. See Bell Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).2 Thus, all claims against

John and Jane Doe officials shall be DISMISSED without prejudice.

1 Dr. Myers was listed in the caption of Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1, p. 1) but does not appear on the

Court’s docket.

2 Group defendants also create problems with service of process. See Jenkins v. Wisconsin Res. Ctr., No.

09-CV-323-BBC, 2009 WL 1797849, at *1 (W.D. Wis. June 24, 2009) (a group of people cannot be sued;

Finally, Plaintiff’s statement of claim (Doc. 1, pp. 9-11, 14) includes allegations against A.

Haggard, A. Loos, J. Smith, Lt. Miller, and Ms. Demsar.These individuals are not included in the

caption of his Complaint(Id. at p. 1)and these claims involving non-parties should be considered

DISMISSED without prejudice. Myles v. United States, 416 F.3d 551, 551-52 (7th Cir. 2005)

(to be considered a party, a defendant must be “specif[ied] in the caption”).

Discussion

Based on the allegations in the Complaint (Doc. 1), the Court finds it convenient to divide

the pro seaction into the following two counts:

Count 1: S. Mercier, Travis Bayler, John R. Baldwin, and Scobi

Thompson were deliberately indifferent under the Eighth

Amendment to his conditions of confinement.

Count 2: State law negligence claim against S. Mercier, Travis Bayler,

John R. Baldwin, and Scobi Thompson for breaching their duty

to serve sanitary food.

The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless

otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. Any other claim that is mentioned in the

Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be considered dismissed without prejudice

as inadequately pled under the Twomblypleading standard.3

Plaintiff fails to state a claim against the namedDefendants for deliberate indifference. As

to these individuals, he only alleges that they denied his grievances and deemed them not an

emergency. Although he does allege that some non-parties, including D. Hess, A. Haggard, and

counselor A. Loos, falsified responses to his grievances, he only alleges that the named Defendants

each defendant must be an individual or legal entity that may accept service of a complaint) (citing Fed.R.

Civ.P. 4(e)-(j)).

3This includes Plaintiff’s claim of breach of contract. 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 to relief that is plausible on its face”).

denied the grievances. The denial or mishandling of a grievance does not amount to a constitutional

violation. Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he alleged mishandling of [a

prisoner’s] grievance by persons who otherwise did not cause or participate in the underlying

conduct states no claim.”); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609-10 (7th Cir. 2007). Because he

only alleges that Defendants denied his grievances and/or deemed them not an emergency, Count

1 is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court further declines to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). See also Contreras v.

Suncast Corp., 237 F.3d 756, 766 (7th Cir.2001) (quoting Disher v. Information Res., Inc., 873

F.2d 136, 140 (7th Cir.1989)).

Disposition

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff is

GRANTED leave to file a “First Amended Complaint” on or before July 13, 2020. Should

Plaintiff fail to file his First Amended Complaint within the allotted time or consistent with the

instructions set forth in this Order, the entire case shall be dismissed with prejudice for failure to

comply with a court order and/or for failure to prosecute his claims. Fed. R. App. P. 41(b). See

generally Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Johnson v. Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466

(7th Cir. 1994); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

An amended complaint supersedes and replaces the original complaint, rendering the

original complaint void. See Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., 354 F.3d 632, 638 n. 1

(7th Cir. 2004).The Court will not accept piecemeal amendments to the original Complaint.Thus,

the First Amended Complaint must stand on its own, without reference to any previous pleading,

and Plaintiff must re-file any exhibits he wishes the Court to consider along with the First Amended

Complaint. The First Amended Complaint is subject to review pursuant to 28U.S.C. § 1915A.

Plaintiff is further ADVISED that his obligation to pay the filing fee for this action was

incurred at the time the action was filed, thus the filing fee remains due and payable, regardless of

whether Plaintiff elects to file a First Amended Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); Lucien v.

Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998).

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

Court and each 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: 6/12/2020 Tl

mel Rpowtty?

NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL

Chief U.S. District Judge