“A plaintiff cannot state a claim against a defendant by including the defendant’s name in the caption.”
How later courts described this case
- “A plaintiff cannot state a claim against a defendant by including the defendant’s name in the caption.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
GREG PINKARD,
#B85940,
Plaintiff, Case No. 3:25-cv-00077-SPM
v.
LATOYA HUGHES,
CHAD JENNINGS,
PHIL MARTIN,
VICKI BICKER MD,
DR. BABOCH,
AMANDA HOSEY RN,
JOSHUA LANG,
NURSE BICKERS, and
JEREMY BONNETT,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MCGLYNN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Greg Pinkard, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections
who is currently incarcerated at Robinson Correctional Center,1 brings this civil
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff
claims that while housed at Robinson he was subjected to untimely and inadequate
medical treatment. He seeks monetary damages.
The Complaint is now before the Court for preliminary review pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, any portion of a complaint is legally frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or requests
monetary damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief must be
dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). At this juncture, the factual allegations of the
pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance
Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
The Complaint2
Plaintiff alleges the following: On or around July 22 or 24, 2023, while
incarcerated at Robinson, he tripped and fell on his outstretched arm, injured his
wrist, and dislocated his right shoulder at the gym. (Doc. 1, p. 19). Plaintiff submitted
a “sick call” request into the sick call box at the direction of an on-duty officer.
Plaintiff sent a total of five “sick call” requests between the date of the injury and
September 7, 2023, which is when he was first seen in the health care unit. All five
requests were returned to him with the response “added to sick call.” (Id.)
At the appointment in the health care unit on September 7, 2023, Plaintiff was
seen by Nurse Amanda Hosey. (Doc. 1, p. 19). Hosey observed and noted in Plaintiff’s
medical charts that Plaintiff’s clavicle and shoulder appeared to be out of alignment.
Despite protocol requiring Hosey to order Plaintiff an x-ray, give him a sling, and
send Plaintiff to the emergency room when there is a suspected dislocation or broken
bone, Hosey sent Plaintiff back to his housing unit with only over-the-counter
Ibuprofen and Tylenol for the pain. (Id.).
2 Because it appears that Plaintiff is relying on statements made in the Complaint and attached exhibits in asserting
On September 10, 2023, Plaintiff sent another sick call slip informing staff that
the two medications given to him by Hosey were ineffective at treating his shoulder
injury, which was “still hurting very badly.” (Doc. 1, p. 19).
About two months after his injury, on September 26, 2023, Plaintiff was
brought back to the health care unit, again to Hosey, and “X-rays were finally ordered
and given.” (Doc. 1, p. 20). It was at this point discovered—and noted in Plaintiff’s
medical records—that his shoulder was dislocated. Plaintiff’s shoulder had been
dislocated for two months without a sling, proper medication, and otherwise proper
medical attention. After discovery of Plaintiff’s dislocated shoulder, he was given a
sling, Tramadol (medication) to take two times a day, and a referral for an orthopedic
consult “marked urgent by Doctor V. Bicker M.D.” (Id.).
On October 12, 2023, Plaintiff was taken by state vehicle to the orthopedic and
sports medicine clinic at Crawford County Hospital in Robinson, Illinois. (Doc. 1, p.
20). There, Plaintiff was given a second set of x-rays which confirmed he had “an
anterior shoulder dislocation [sic].” It was then noted that because of the extended
period of time that the “IDOC healthcare unit allowed” his shoulder to “remain
dislocated without proper treatment and without being taken to the emergency room
for a shoulder reduction procedure,” that surgery would “now” be required. (Id.).
The orthopedic consult referred Plaintiff to be seen by an orthopedic surgeon
who specialized in shoulder surgery at Carle Orthopedic and Sports Medicine Center
in Urbana, Illinois. (Doc. 1, p. 20). The surgeon ordered an “MRI with contrast” and
two separate CT scans (a second CT scan was ordered on September 16, 2024, because
the “IDOC/Robinson/Wexford healthcare unit failed to forward results” of the first CT
scan). (Id., p. 15, 20). After the second CT scan, the surgeon concluded that because
Plaintiff’s shoulder had gone untreated for so long, he would have to undergo
“invasive full shoulder replacement.” (Id., p. 21). If Plaintiff had originally been taken
to the emergency room when the injury occurred, all that would have been needed
was a “shoulder reduction procedure.” The surgeon also reported that “too much time
ha[d] passed,” causing deterioration of Plaintiff’s shoulder “beyond repair” with the
“far less intrusive orthoscopic labria [sic] repair surgery.” (Id., p. 15).
“Numerous grievances” submitted by Plaintiff were signed off by Warden Chad
Jennings and Healthcare Unit Administrator Phil Martin, which were then appealed
to the administrative review board and signed off by Acting Director of Illinois
Department of Corrections Latoya Hughes. (Doc. 1, p. 21).
Preliminary Dismissal
Though Plaintiff names Defendants Dr. Baboch, Joshua Lang, Nurse Bickers,
and Jeremey Bennet in the caption of his complaint, he fails to list them elsewhere
in his complaint, so the Court is unable to ascertain what claims, if any, Plaintiff has
against these Defendants. Because merely invoking the name of a potential
defendant is not sufficient to state a claim against that individual, Dr. Baboch,
Joshua Lang, Nurse Bickers, and Jeremey Bennet are dismissed without prejudice.
See Collins v. Kibort, 143 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1998) (“A plaintiff cannot state a
claim against a defendant by including the defendant’s name in the caption.”).
Discussion
Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to
designate the following count:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against Amanda Hosey, Vicki Becker, and
Latoya Hughes for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s medical needs.
Count 2: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Chad
Jennings and Phil Martin for failing to intervene to ensure that Plaintiff
would be given adequate medical treatment at Robinson.
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 Twombly pleading standard.3
Count 1
Plaintiff claims that nurse Amanda Hosey failed to follow proper protocol in
providing medical care after Plaintiff’s shoulder injury, asserting that the treatment
she provided was inadequate because Plaintiff should have been provided with an x-
ray, a sling, and an emergency room visit. He further claims that the care after his
shoulder injury on July 22 or 24, 2023, was untimely, and that the delay in receiving
appropriate treatment ultimately resulted in his need for invasive shoulder surgery.
These allegations are sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment Claim for deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05
(1976).
Count 1 is dismissed as to Vicki Bicker. The only mention of Bicker in the
Complaint is that she referred Plaintiff to an orthopedic consult. (Doc. 1, p. 20).
Without more, the Court cannot reasonably infer deliberate indifference on her part.
Thus, Count 1 is dismissed as to Vicker Bicker.
Count 1 is dismissed as to Latoya Hughes. Hughes is said to have “signed off”
on Plaintiff’s grievances at the appeals stage. (Doc. 1, p. 21). Ordinarily, an
administrative official who only reviews an inmate’s grievances over the alleged
misconduct of another person is not “personally responsible” for the complained-of
conduct and does not incur liability in a civil rights case for denying the grievance.
See Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff’s only connection to
Hughes is that she signed off on the grievance appeal decisions, thereby affirming the
underlying responses to his medical complaints. (Doc. 1, p. 21). Plaintiff does not
allege Hughes participated in or caused the underlying conduct. Further, as Acting
Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections, Hughes is too far removed from
the conduct. Thus, Count 1 is dismissed at to Latoya Hughes.
Count 2
Plaintiff claims he completed “numerous grievances” which were all “signed
off” by Chad Jennings and Phil Martin. (Doc. 1, p. 21). The grievances detail both the
delay and lack of medical attention Plaintiff received, or rather, did not receive. (Id.,
p. 8, 10, 12, 14, and 15). Plaintiff experienced a significant delay in receiving medical
treatment, and when he was eventually seen by the health care unit, the care
provided was inadequate. (Id., p. 19). So too, Plaintiff’s medications were not
administered on a regular basis. (Id., p. 14). Typically, mishandling grievances,
without having caused or participated in the underlying conduct, is insufficient to
state a claim. Owens at 953. And “a non-medical prison official ‘will generally be
justified in believing that the prisoner is in capable hands,’ if the prisoner is under
the care of medical professionals.” Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 755 (7th Cir. 2011)
(quoting Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 236 (3d Cir. 2004)). However, personal
responsibility may be established by a non-medical prison official if the official
“know[s] about the conduct and facilitate[s] it, approve[s] it, condone[s] it, or turn[s]
a blind eye.” Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561 (7th Cir. 1995) (quoting Jones v.
City of Chicago, 856 F.2d 985, 992 (7th Cir. 1988)). Further, a deliberate indifference
claim may be brought against a non-medical prison official who fails to intervene
when they have knowledge that a prisoner is receiving inadequate medical care for a
serious medical condition, as outlined in a prisoner’s “coherent and highly detailed
grievances and other correspondences.” Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 782 (7th Cir.
2015). Chad Jennings and Phil Martin were both aware of Plaintiff’s repeated
grievances regarding inadequate and delayed medical care, as well as multiple call
slips requesting treatment. Despite this knowledge, they deferred to the very medical
staff Plaintiff alleged were either failing to treat him or providing inadequate care.
From these facts, it is reasonable to infer that Jennings and Martin acted with
deliberate indifference by failing to intervene to ensure Plaintiff received adequate
medical attention. Accordingly, Plaintiff has stated a plausible Eighth Amendment
claim for deliberate indifference based on their failure to act.
Disposition
For the reasons stated above, Count 1, shall proceed against Amanda Hosey,
but is DISMISSED without prejudice against Vicki Bicker and Latoya Hughes;
Count 2 shall proceed against Chad Jennings and Phil Martin.
Because there are no surviving claims against Latoya Hughes, Vicki Bicker
MD, Dr. Baboch, Joshua Lang, Nurse Bickers, and Jeremy Bonnett, the Clerk of
Court is DIRECTED to TERMINATE Latoya Hughes, Vicki Bicker MD, Dr. Baboch,
Joshua Lang, Nurse Bickers, and Jeremy Bonnett as Defendants.
Because Plaintiff’s claims involve his medical care, the Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to ENTER the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Amanda Hosey, Chad Jennings, and
Phil Martin: (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 any Defendant fails to
sign and return the Waiver of Service of Summons (Form 6) within 30 days from the
date the forms were sent, the Clerk shall take appropriate steps to effect formal
service, 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 can no longer be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff,
the employer shall furnish the Clerk with the Defendant’s current work address, or,
if unknown, the 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. Address information shall not be
maintained in the court file or otherwise disclosed.
Each Defendant is ORDERED to file an appropriate responsive pleading to
the Complaint in a timely manner and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(g). Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 244, each Defendant
only needs to respond to the issues stated in this Merit Review Order.
If judgment is rendered against Plaintiff and the judgment includes the
payment of costs under Section 1915, he will be required to pay the full amount of the
costs, even though his application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)(A).
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 14 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: July 17, 2025
__s/Stephen P. McGlynn_______________
STEPHEN P. MCGLYNN
United States District Judge
Notice to Plaintiff
The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the appropriate defendants of
your lawsuit and serve them with a copy of your complaint. After service has been
achieved, the defendants will enter their appearance and file an Answer to the
complaint. It will likely take at least 60 days from the date of this Order to receive
the defendants’ Answers, but it is entirely possible that it will take 90 days or more.
When all of the defendants have filed 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 the 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 his time, unless otherwise directed by the Court.