stating that “the alleged mishandling of [a prisoner’s] grievance by persons who otherwise did not cause or participate in the underlying conduct states no claim.”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “the alleged mishandling of [a prisoner’s] grievance by persons who otherwise did not cause or participate in the underlying conduct states no claim.”
- stating that the relevant inquiry is whether defendants “actually knew about [Plaintiff’s] condition, not whether a reasonable official should have known.”
- noting that a successful Complaint generally alleges “the who, what, when, where, and how . . . .”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHRISTIAN T. POWELL,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 3:23-cv-01644-GCS
ANTHONY WILLS, KEVIN REICHERT,
and ANGELA CRANE,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
SISON, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Christian T. Powell, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”) who is currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, brings this action
for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges he was denied prior care for his medical conditions in
violation of the Eighth Amendment.
This case is now before the Court for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. Under Section 1915A, 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
THE COMPLAINT
Plaintiff alleges that on March 9, 2022, he arrived at Menard Correctional Center
(Doc. 1, p. 18). He claims he was denied medical treatment for numerous conditions
including Hepatitis C, a back injury, skin diseases, scalp disease, stomach problems, sinus
infection, allergies, and various other illnesses. He also claims that he broke his pinky
finger, and it healed incorrectly due to the lack of medical care. Plaintiff further alleges
that he placed numerous sick call slips, complaints, and grievances but has been ignored.
He believes that he is being denied medical care due to both his sexuality and the nature
of his crimes. Id. In an attached affidavit, Plaintiff indicates he has written numerous
grievances that were never returned. Id. at p. 6. He believes “correctional staff” obstruct
the grievance process and he has overheard officers brag about shaking the grievances
out of the box. Id. Plaintiff similarly complains that sick call passes are destroyed and that
he is being retaliated against for filing grievances. Id.
DISCUSSION
Simply put, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim. Plaintiff alleges that he
suffers from several health conditions. He alleges that he has not received any care for
those conditions. To demonstrate deliberate indifference, Plaintiff must allege that the
defendants were aware of the serious medical condition and either intentionally or
recklessly disregarded it. See Hayes v. Snyder, 546 F.3d 516, 524 (7th Cir. 2008). Negligence
is not enough; a plaintiff must demonstrate that a defendant denied medical care
altogether, delayed care, continued with ineffective treatment, or departed substantially
from accepted professional judgment. See Brown v. Osmundson, 38 F.4th 545, 550 (7th Cir.
2022). Plaintiff merely lists several conditions that he allegedly suffers from and then
states that he is being denied proper care. There are no allegations to suggest when he
sought care for any of the numerous conditions, who he sought care from, and what care
has been provided or denied. He states that he broke his finger, but there is no indication
in as to when this incident occurred or who he told about the broken finger. Plaintiff
includes a grievance about medical care for his sinuses and allergies, but he fails to
include any factual allegations about when he sought care for those conditions or from
whom he sought care. (Doc. 1, p. 8-17). As pled, these allegations are not sufficient to state
a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; FED. R. CIV. PROC. 8. See also DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901
F.2d 624, 627 (7th Cir. 1990) (noting that a successful Complaint generally alleges “the
who, what, when, where, and how . . . .”).
Although Plaintiff identifies individuals in the caption of his Complaint, he fails
to include them in his statement of the claim. There are no allegations to suggest that he
sought care from any of the defendants. Plaintiff also fails to state what role these
individuals played in providing him care. And there is no indication that any of the
named defendants knew about his conditions and acted with deliberate indifference. See,
e.g., Qian v. Kautz, 168 F.3d 949, 955 (7th Cir. 1999) (stating that the relevant inquiry is
whether defendants “actually knew about [Plaintiff’s] condition, not whether a
reasonable official should have known.”). Further, none of the officials can be held liable
simply for their positions as wardens or high-ranking officials because the doctrine
of respondeat superior (supervisory liability) does not apply to actions filed under Section
1983. See Kinslow v. Pullara, 538 F.3d 687, 692 (7th Cir. 2008). Nor can they be liable for
simply responding to Plaintiff’s grievances. See, e.g., Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953
(7th Cir. 2011) (stating that “the 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, 609-610 (7th Cir. 2007).
Thus, Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state
a claim. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue a claim of deliberate indifference for any of the care
provided, he will have to file an Amended Complaint. He is reminded that his Amended
Complaint should indicate each defendant’s alleged involvement in his care and allege
how the individual’s actions amount to deliberate indifference.
DISPOSITION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without
prejudice. He is GRANTED leave to file a “First Amended Complaint” on or before
September 27, 2023. 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. See FED. R. CIV. PROC. 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).
The dismissal shall count as one of Plaintiff’s three allotted “strikes” under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g).
An amended complaint supersedes and replaces the original complaint, rendering
the original complaint void. See Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass’n of America, 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 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
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 no
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. Clv. PRoc. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Digitally signed by
DATED: August 30, 2023. Abend oe. a0
10:46:02 -05'00'
GILBERTC.SISON
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 5 of 5