Wilborn v. Siddiqui

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JOSEPH WILBORN, #R17937 )

)

Plaintiff, )

vs. ) Case No. 3:19-cv-00082-DWD

)

MOHAMMED SIDDIQUI, )

FRANK LAWRENCE, )

C/O MCCALEB, and )

C/O KIEFER, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DUGAN, District Judge:

Plaintiff Joseph Wilborn, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections, filed the

instant lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights at

Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”). This case is now before the Court for preliminary review

of the Complaint (Doc. 12) 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 Complaint

Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the Complaint (Doc. 12): Plaintiff arrived at

Menard on April 14, 2018. At that time, he had a pre-existing right shoulder injury that had

resulted in a Hill-Sachs defect and a Bankart lesion. Due to his shoulder issues, he had a waist

chain cuffing permit.

Menard Warden Lawrence has a behind the back cuffing policy for the Menard N2

cellhouse, which is where Plaintiff was housed. Additionally, Warden Lawrence and Dr. Siddiqui

have a behind the back cuffing policy to receive medication from nurses. Warden Lawrence and

Dr. Siddiqui are aware of Plaintiff’s shoulder injury/condition. Warden Lawrence and Dr.

Siddiqui’s cuffing policies caused Plaintiff pain on a daily basis from April 14, 2018 to February

14, 2019. He complained of severe pain and limited range of motion to the Defendants in 2018

and 2019. His right shoulder did not improve while subject to the behind the back cuffing policy

at Menard.

Correctional Officers McCaleb and Kiefer assaulted Plaintiff on May 5, 2018. Plaintiff

suffered a head injury, a busted mouth, and his pre-existing right shoulder injury was exacerbated.

He requested medical treatment, which McCaleb and Kiefer denied. The incident was not reported

and he did not received medical attention for four days. Warden Lawrence and Dr. Siddiqui allow

medical and security staff to falsify reports and medical records and cover up official misconduct.

They also have a pattern and practice of allowing and not reporting assaults on inmates.

Discussion

Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court designates the following claims in this

pro se action:

Count 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs

claim against Warden Lawrence and Dr. Siddiqui for requiring

Plaintiff to be handcuffed behind his back exacerbating his right

shoulder injury/condition and causing him pain.

Count 2: Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against McCaleb and

Kiefer for assaulting Plaintiff on May 5, 2018.

Count 3: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs

claim against McCaleb and Kiefer for denying Plaintiff medical care

after the assault on May 5, 2018.

Count 4: Eighth Amendment claim against Warden Lawrence and Dr.

Siddiqui for Menard officials’ practice of assaulting prisoners and

not reporting the incident and/or falsifying reports and medical

records to cover up official misconduct that resulted in the May 5,

2018 assault and denial of medical care for four days.

Any claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed in this Order is dismissed

without prejudice as inadequately pled under the Twombly pleading standard.1 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.”).

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 (or

dental) needs. Rasho v. Elyea, 856 F.3d 469, 475 (7th Cir. 2017). To state 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. The allegations

in the Complaint are sufficient at this stage to proceed on a deliberate indifference claim against

Warden Lawrence and Dr. Siddiqui for requiring Plaintiff to be handcuffed behind his back with

knowledge of his shoulder injury/condition. Plaintiff does not state a claim based on the mere

existence of the behind the back cuffing policy.

Count 2

The allegations in the Complaint are sufficient to proceed on the excessive force claim in

Count 2 against McCaleb and Kiefer for the alleged assault on May 5, 2018. See Wilborn v. Ealey,

881 F.3d 998, 1006 (7th Cir. 2018) (“Correctional officers violate the Eighth Amendment when

they use force not in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, but maliciously and

sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.”).

1Plaintiff fails to state a claim on his allegation that Warden Lawrence and Dr. Siddiqui had a sick call and

doctor appointment cancellation policy that was enforced for lock downs and other non-medical reasons in

2018 and 2019. There are no other related allegations in the Complaint, nor is there any suggestion as to

how and when this policy affected Plaintiff.

Count 3

The allegations in the Complaint are sufficient to proceed on the deliberate indifference

claim in Count 3 against McCaleb and Kiefer for the denial of medical treatment for injuries from

the alleged assault on May 5, 2018. See Cooper v. Casey, 97 F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 1996) (failure to

obtain medical assistance for an inmate who has been assaulted may constitute deliberate

indifference to a serious medical need).

Count 4

Plaintiff appears to be asserting an unconstitutional policies and customs claim premised

on Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). A Monell claim is established by

showing “‘(1) an action pursuant to a municipal policy, (2) culpability, meaning that policymakers

were deliberately indifferent to a known risk that the policy would lead to constitutional violations,

and (3) causation, meaning the municipal action was the ‘moving force’ behind the constitutional

injury.’” Pulera v. Sarzant, 966 F.3d 540, 550 (7th Cir. 2020) (quoting Hall v. City of Chi., 953

F.3d 945, 950 (7th Cir. 2020)). A Monell claim is properly brought against a municipality, Sanville

v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 739-40 (7th Cir. 2001), and the Seventh Circuit has

extended Monell to private entities, Shields v. Ill. Dept. of Corr., 746 F.3d 782 (7th Cir.

2014) (citing cases). The claim is not proper against Warden Lawrence or Dr. Siddiqui.

Further, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to hold Warden Lawrence and Dr. Siddiqui liable

based on their positions as administrators or supervisors, there is no respondent superior or

“supervisor liability” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Chavez v. Illinois State Police, 251 F.3d 612,

651 (2001).

For the foregoing reasons, and because Plaintiff has not alleged that Warden Lawrence or

Dr. Siddiqui was personally involved in the May 5, 2018 assault or the subsequent denial of

medical treatment, Count 4 will be dismissed.

Official Capacity Claims

Defendants have been named in both their individual and official capacities. Because

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, the claims will proceed against Defendants in their individual

capacities and the official capacity claims will be dismissed. See Brown v. Budz, 904 F.3d 904,

918 (7th Cir. 2005) (claim for monetary damages must be brought against defendant in his

individual capacity only); Power v. Summers, 226 F.3d 815, 818 (7th Cir. 2000) (official capacity

claim against an individual is really a lawsuit for money damages against the State, which is barred

by the Eleventh Amendment and the doctrine of sovereign immunity).

Disposition

The Complaint survives review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A in part and is dismissed in part

as follows: Count 1 will proceed against Mohammed Siddiqui and Frank Lawrence. Counts 2 and

3 will proceed against C/O McCaleb and C/O Kiefer. The claim in Count 4 and the official

capacity claims against Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice.

The Clerk shall prepare for Mohammed Siddiqui, Frank Lawrence, C/O McCaleb, and C/O

Kiefer: (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 Complaint, and this Memorandum and Order to each 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

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. 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).

Based on the allegations in the 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. Ute J ne

DATED: November 9, 2021

DAVID W.DUGAN

United States District Judge

Notice to Plaintiff

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

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

enter an appearance and file an Answer to your 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 an Answer, the Court will enter a Scheduling and

Discovery 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 should not submit any evidence to the Court at this time, unless

specifically directed to do so.