Hare v. Tharp

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

KEITH L. HARE, #Y50064, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 22-cv-02281-JPG

)

KRISTOPHER THARP, )

ROCHELLE BROWN, )

and MARY DAMBACHER, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

GILBERT, District Judge:

Plaintiff Keith Hare, a former inmate at Madison County Jail (“Jail”) located in

Edwardsville, Illinois, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-

51). Plaintiff claims that his medical care was neglected during his confinement at the Jail from

December 3, 2019 to February 13, 2022. (Id. at 7-8). He seeks monetary relief.1 (Id. at 9).

The Complaint is now before the Court for preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,

which requires the Court to screen prisoner Complaints and filter out non-meritorious claims.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of the Complaint that is legally frivolous or 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). At this juncture, the factual allegations are liberally construed.

Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).

1 Plaintiff also requests a court order requiring the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) to “look into

these issues that were not forwarded” when he transferred into IDOC custody. (Doc. 1, p. 9). This amounts

to a request for injunctive relief aimed at a non-party (IDOC) for the denial of care at his current facility

(Pinckneyville Correctional Center). Because the request does not pertain to the claims at issue in this case,

it is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff is free to file a separate lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the

denial of medical care at Pinckneyville.

The Complaint

Plaintiff sets forth the following allegations in the Complaint (Doc. 1, pp. 7-8): During his

confinement at Madison County Jail from December 3, 2019 until February 13, 2022, Plaintiff

faced several medical issues. Some were addressed at the Jail, others were referred to an outside

provider, and still others were “outright neglected.” (Id. at 7). He identifies the following medical

issues that were neglected: left shoulder pain,2 heart issues,3 abnormal bloodwork,4 and an

unknown autoimmune disorder.5 (Id. at 7-8).

Based on the allegations summarized above, the Court finds it convenient to designate the

following enumerated claims in the pro se Complaint:

Count 1: Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendants for

denying Plaintiff adequate medical care for his left shoulder, elbow,

and hand pain from June 2020 until February 2022.

Count 2: Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendants for

denying Plaintiff adequate medical care for his heart condition, i.e.,

cardiomyopathy, from June 2020 until February 2022.

Count 3: Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendants for

denying Plaintiff adequate medical care following his abnormal

bloodwork.

Count 4: Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendants for

denying Plaintiff adequate medical care for his unknown

autoimmune disorder.

2 Plaintiff explains that his left shoulder pain progressively worsened from June 2020 until his transfer in

February 2022. He eventually lost the ability to raise his left arm above his head or make a fist. (Id. at 7).

3 Plaintiff’s chest pain began shortly after his left shoulder pain, and he was sent for emergency room

treatment twice before he was referred to a specialist and diagnosed with cardiomyopathy. He maintains

that “nothing was ever reported to the staff” by the specialist, and Plaintiff never received treatment for the

condition. (Id.).

4 Plaintiff lists the following concerns about his abnormal bloodwork: Vitamin D deficiency, “Hep B Core

Ab” (positive abnormal), antinuclear antibodies (positive abnormal), and homogenous pattern (high).

He identifies the “suggested disease association” as lupus, scleroderma, or primary biliary cirrhosis (liver

damage). (Id. at 8).

5 Plaintiff suffered from fatigue, dizziness, skin infections, and constipation that he attributes to this

condition. (Id.).

Any other claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed herein is considered

dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under Twombly.6

Discussion

The applicable legal standard for Counts 1 through 4 depends on Plaintiff’s status as a

pretrial detainee or convicted prisoner while he was at the Jail from December 3, 2019 until

February 13, 2022. Plaintiff has not offered any information about his legal status. Therefore, the

Court will summarize the standards that apply to detainees and prisoners.

A pretrial detainee’s claim for the denial of medical care is governed by the Fourteenth

Amendment Due Process Clause and consists of two components. First, the Court considers

whether “defendants acted purposefully, knowingly, or perhaps even recklessly when they

considered the consequences of their handling” of the detainee’s serious medical need. McCann

v. Ogle Cty., Illinois, 909 F.3d 881, 886 (7th Cir. 2018) (internal quotations omitted). Next, the

Court asks “whether the challenged conduct was objectively reasonable” based on “the totality of

the facts and circumstances faced by the individual alleged to have provided inadequate medical

care” to the detainee. Id. Negligence does not satisfy this standard. Id.

A convicted prisoner’s claim for denial of medical care is subject to the Eighth Amendment

prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and also consists of two components. Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). The Court first determines whether the prisoner-plaintiff has

described an objectively serious medical need. Id. The Court next considers whether each

individual defendant responded to the prisoner-plaintiff’s serious medical need with deliberate

indifference. Id. Negligence does not satisfy this standard either. Id.

Plaintiff names three defendants in the case caption of the Complaint: Captain Kristopher

6 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”).

Tharp, Nurse Practitioner Mary Dambacher, and Nurse Rochelle Brown. However, he does not

mention these defendants in the statement of his claim. The Court is unable to guess what each

defendant did, or failed to do, in violation of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff must provide some

context for his claims against each defendant, and he has not done so in the body of his Complaint.

His exhibits offer little additional information about any defendant’s role in the denial of his care

for any of the conditions listed above. Moreover, he blames the denial of medical care on acts of

negligence, but negligence does not support a claim under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment.

Section 1983 creates a cause of action based on personal liability and predicated upon fault.

In order to be liable under Section 1983, an individual defendant must have caused or participated

in a constitutional deprivation. Pepper v. Village of Oak Park, 430 F.3d 809, 810 (7th Cir. 2005).

In other words, Plaintiff must identify particular defendants and describe the acts or omissions that

caused a deprivation of his constitutional rights. He cannot list potential defendants in the case

caption and expect to state a claim against them without more. He must draw a connection between

each defendant and his own constitutional deprivation. Having failed to establish this nexus,

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants shall be dismissed without prejudice. However, Plaintiff will

have an opportunity to re-plead his claim in a First Amended Complaint if he would like to proceed

with his claims. When preparing a First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff should identify each

defendant in the case caption and set forth allegations describing what each defendant did, or failed

to do, to violate his constitutional rights. To avoid dismissal with prejudice, he must follow the

instructions and deadline in the below disposition.

Disposition

IT IS ORDERED that the Complaint—including Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4—is DISMISSED

without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. ALL

DEFENDANTS are DISMISSED without prejudice, and the Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to

TERMINATE them as parties in CM/ECF.

Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file a “First Amended Complaint” on or before

March 16, 2023. Should he fail to file an amended complaint within the allotted time or consistent

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

comply with a court order and/or prosecute his claims. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); 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). The dismissal shall also count as one of Plaintiff’s three allotted “strikes” under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

It is strongly recommended that Plaintiff use the civil rights complaint form designed for

use in this District. He should label the form, “First Amended Complaint,” and list the case number

for this action (No. 22-cv-02281-JPG) on the first page. To enable Plaintiff to comply with this

Order, the CLERK is DIRECTED to mail Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint form.

An amended complaint generally supersedes and replaces prior versions, 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 First Amended Complaint must stand on its own without reference to any

previous pleading. Plaintiff must re-file any exhibits he wishes the Court to consider. The First

Amended Complaint is also subject to review pursuant to 28 U.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 files a First Amended Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

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

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

independently investigate her 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: 2/21/2023

s/J. Phil Gilbert

J. PHIL GILBERT

United States District Judge