Booker v. Does

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

DARELL C. BOOKER, #M47921, )

)

Plaintiff, )

vs. ) Case No. 3:20-cv-01281-SMY

)

WARDEN LOVE, )

WARDEN THOMPSON, )

C/O MARTIN, )

R. SAMALINSKI, )

JOHN DOES, Nurses, )

JANE DOES, Nurses, )

JOHN DOES, Counselors, )

JANE DOES, Counselors, and )

WARDEN THOMPSON, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

YANDLE, District Judge:

Plaintiff Darell C. Booker, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections currently

incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center, filed the instant lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at Pinckneyville

Correctional Center. This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the First

Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 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 First Amended Complaint

Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 15):1 On

1 Plaintiff refers to “attached” documents numerous times but there are no documents attached to the First Amended

Complaint. To the extent he refers to documents attached to his original Complaint, those documents have not been

considered. See (Doc. 12, p.4) (“Plaintiff must re-file any relevant exhibits he wishes the Court to consider.”).

April 11, 2017, Plaintiff notified C/O Martin that he had major pain in his right arm and could not

move it. Plaintiff asked to see a med tech but was denied. He then requested a crisis team and

utilized that process to see a med tech. C/O Martin told a sergeant that Plaintiff was faking. The

sergeant issued Plaintiff a disciplinary ticket for providing false information to an employee. The

ticket refers to a hurt shoulder and the Warden signed off on the ticket.

Thereafter, Plaintiff submitted multiple sick calls requests. John and Jane Doe Nurses put

him on medication that caused “hard” breathing and side effects. He requested an x-ray but John

and Jane Doe Nurses x-rayed the wrong arm. He also requested an MRI which John and Jane Doe

Nurses denied.

Plaintiff filed grievances against John and Jane Doe Nurses for refusing to diagnose and

treat his injury. John and Jane Doe Counselors denied his grievances and did nothing to help him.

He spoke with Warden Thompson and told him about the injury and the denial of medical

treatment, but the Warden did nothing to help him. Warden Thompson and Warden Love were

aware of the situation based on the grievances Plaintiff filed, which they denied; they did nothing

to help him. He spoke with R. Samalinski and there is paperwork that proves he knew about

Plaintiff’s injury.

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

following claims in this pro se action:

Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against C/O Martin, Warden Thompson,

Warden Love, John and Jane Doe Nurses, John and Jane Doe

Counselors, and R. Samalinski for exhibiting deliberate indifference

to Plaintiff’s right arm injury and pain.

Count 2: Fourteenth Amendment claim against Warden Thompson, Warden

Love, and John and Jane Doe Counselors for denying his grievances.

Count 3: Fourteenth Amendment claim for a false disciplinary ticket.

Any other claim that is mentioned in the First Amended Complaint and not addressed herein is

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.”).

Preliminary Dismissal

Plaintiff refers to a sergeant in his statement of claim who is not named as a defendant.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) requires the names of all parties to be included in the case

caption. Therefore, any claim intended against the sergeant cannot proceed because it fails to state

a claim and is therefore dismissed without prejudice. See Myles v. United States, 416 F.3d 551,

551–52 (7th Cir. 2005) (holding pro se Complaint failed to state a claim against individual

mentioned in body of Complaint but not specified in the caption).

Discussion

Count 1

Prison officials and medical staff violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and

unusual punishment when they act with deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical

needs. Rasho v. Elyea, 856 F.3d 469, 475 (7th Cir. 2017). To state such a claim, a prisoner must

allege facts suggesting that (1) he suffered from an objectively serious medical condition, and (2)

the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Id. “[D]eliberate

indifference may be found where an official knows about unconstitutional conduct and facilitates,

approves, condones, or turns a blind eye to it.” Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 781 (7th Cir.

2015).

Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim against C/O

Martin, Warden Thompson, and Warden Love but not against any other defendant. However, the

allegation that there is paperwork with R. Samalinski’s name on it that proves he knew about

Plaintiff’s injury is insufficient to state a claim; it fails to establish the requisite knowledge of

Plaintiff’s condition and deliberate indifference.

Additionally, Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient as to the John and Jane Doe Nurses. A

Complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), which includes “enough facts to state a claim to relief

that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007). An

allegation that a group of defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights fails to comply with Rule 8 and

Twombly pleading standards. While Plaintiff may use “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” to refer to parties

whose names are unknown, he must still follow pleading standards. Further, because Plaintiff

brings his claims under § 1983, he must allege that each defendant was personally involved in the

deprivation of a constitutional right. Matz v. Klotka, 769 F.3d 517, 528 (7th Cir. 2014)

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

deprivation”). There are no factual allegations in the First Amended Complaint to describe what

each of the individual John or Jane Doe Nurses did or failed to do to violate Plaintiff’s

constitutional rights. Plaintiff is required to identify the John and Jane Does as much as possible

and at least distinguish between different Does. (For example, John Doe # 1 did X and Jane Doe

# 1 did Y.). For these reasons, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against John and Jane Doe Nurses,

and they will be dismissed.

The same pleading deficiencies exist with respect to the John and Jane Doe Counselors.

Further, prison officials such as counselors who simply processed or reviewed grievances lack

personal involvement in the conduct forming the basis of the grievance.” Owens v. Evans, 878

F.3d 559, 563 (7th Cir. 2017). In other words, some personal involvement beyond the grievance

process is necessary. Haywood v. Hathaway, 842 F.3d 1026 (7th Cir. 2016). Plaintiff fails to state a

viable claim against John and Jane Doe Counselors, and they will be dismissed.

Count 2

Plaintiff fails to state a claim against the grievance officials for allegedly failing to

investigate and/or denying his grievances. “Prison grievance procedures are not mandated by the

First Amendment and do not by their very existence create interests protected by the Due Process

Clause, and so the alleged mishandling of [a prisoner’s] grievances by person who otherwise did

not cause or participate in the underlying conduct states no claim.” Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d

950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011). Therefore, Count 2 will be dismissed.

Count 3

It is not clear whether Plaintiff intended to state a claim regarding the disciplinary ticket he

received, and if he did, who is associated with that claim. A due process claim under the

Fourteenth Amendment is typically associated with disciplinary proceedings. To state such a

claim, Plaintiff must sufficiently allege that the state deprived him of a constitutionally protected

interest in “life, liberty, or property” without due process of law. Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S.

113, 125 (1990). A court analyzing this claim in the context of prison disciplinary hearings must

consider (1) whether there was a protected interest at stake that necessitated due process

protections and (2) whether the disciplinary hearing was conducted in accordance with procedural

due process requirements. Id. Here, Plaintiff’s allegations do not suggest a due process violation

in connection with the disciplinary hearing nor does he allege a protected interest was at stake. As

such, Count 3 will be dismissed.

Disposition

The First Amended Complaint survives preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A on

the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim in Count 1 against

C/O Martin, Warden Thompson, and Warden Love. Counts 2 and 3 are DISMISSED without

prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief. Because Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief

against R. Samalinski, John and Jane Doe Nurses, and John and Jane Doe Counselors, they are

DISMISSED without prejudice and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to TERMINATE them

as defendants.

The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendants C/O Martin, Warden Thompson, and

Warden Love: (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 First Amended Complaint, and this Memorandum and Order to Defendant’s place of

employment as identified by Plaintiff. If a 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

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

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

of Civil Procedure.

If a 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 and shall not be maintained in the court file or disclosed by the Clerk.

Defendants are ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the First

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

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

Review Order.

Plaintiff is ADVISED that if judgment is rendered against him and the judgment includes

the payment of costs under 28 U.S.C. §1915, he 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).

Plaintiff is further 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).

Finally, based on the allegations in the First Amended Complaint, the Clerk of Court is

DIRECTED to ENTER the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance

Portability and Accountability Act.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 17, 2021

s/ Staci M. Yandle_____

STACI M. YANDLE

United States District Judge

Notice to Plaintiff

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

with a copy of your First Amended Complaint. After service has been achieved, Defendants will

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

least 60 days from the date of this Order to receive the Defendants’ Answer, but it is entirely

possible that it will take 90 days or more. When Defendants have filed their Answers, 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 Defendants before filing any

motions, to give the Defendants notice and an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions

filed before Defendants’ 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.