United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
DANNY L. SAINTIGNON, Jr., Plaintiff,
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES INC., SAMUEL BYRD, BARBARA RIGGS, RICHARD BROWN, KEVIN GILMORE, MIKE CARDINAL, Defendants.
ENTRY SCREENING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FURTHER
William T. Lawrence, Judge
Danny Saintignon, an inmate at the Wabash Valley Correctional
Facility, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 alleging that the defendants have violated his right to
constitutionally adequate medical care.
the plaintiff is a “prisoner” as defined by 28
U.S.C. § 1915(h), this Court has an obligation under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b) to screen his complaint before service
on the defendants. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the
Court must dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief. In determining whether the complaint states a claim,
the Court applies the same standard as when addressing a
motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). See Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621,
624 (7th Cir. 2006). To survive dismissal,
[the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a
plaintiff must allege that: (1) he was deprived of a right
secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and
(2) the deprivation was visited upon him by a person or
persons acting under color of state law. Buchanan-Moore
v. County of Milwaukee, 570 F.3d 824, 827 (7th Cir.
2009); see also Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640
(1980). Pro se complaints such as that filed by the plaintiff
are construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Obriecht v.
Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 491 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008).
alleges that while he was playing basketball at Wabash
Valley, he fell and broke his wrist. He was transported to
Terre Haute Regional Hospital where he underwent surgery to
repair the injury. Upon his return to Wabash Valley, he
requested medication for his pain. He was given Ibuprofen and
Tylenol, but these medications did not alleviate his pain. He
submitted health care requests to Nurse Barbara Riggs and Dr.
Byrd that were either ignored or delayed. Saintignon further
alleges that these failures to respond to Saintignon's
requests were a result of a policy or practice by Wexford
Health Sources, Inc. He also alleges that he fell because of
a crack or a dip in the basketball court and that defendants
Kevin Gilmore and Mike Cardinal were responsible for
maintaining the court.
on the screening standard described above, certain claims
shall proceed while others will be dismissed. First, the
claim that Dr. Byrd and Nurse Barbara Riggs delayed in
providing Saintignon pain treatment shall
proceed as a claim that these defendants were
deliberately indifferent to Saintignon's serious medical
needs in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. The claim
that these delays were the result of a policy or practice of
Wexford shall also proceed.
claim against Richard Brown is dismissed.
Saintignon alleges that Brown failed to properly monitor his
medical staff. This amounts to a claim that Brown should be
held responsible based on his supervisory role. But
“[i]ndividual liability under § 1983…
requires personal involvement in the alleged constitutional
deprivation.” Colbert v. City of Chicago, 851
F.3d 649, 657 (7th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation omitted)
(citing Wolf-Lillie v. Sonquist, 699 F.2d 864, 869
(7th Cir. 1983). Mere “knowledge of a subordinate's
misconduct is not enough for liability.” Vance v.
Rumsfeld, 701 F.3d 193, 203 (7th Cir. 2012) (en banc).
Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 595 (7th Cir. 2009)
(holding that the supervisor at issue was not personally
responsible; “[t]he Governor, and for that matter the
Superintendent of Prisons and the Warden of each prison, is
entitled to relegate to the prison's medical staff the
provision of good medical care”).
against Kevin Gilmore and Mike Cardinal based on the
allegation that they were aware or should have been aware of
the crack in the basketball court and failed to repair it
must be dismissed. Claims brought under
§ 1983 related to conditions of confinement are
considered under the Eighth Amendment. To state a claim under
the Eighth Amendment, the plaintiff must allege that the
defendant knew of an excessive risk to the plaintiff's
safety and ignored it. Gevas v. McLaughlin, 798 F.3d
475, 480 (7th Cir. 2015). A crack in a basketball court is
not the kind of excessive risk which the Eighth Amendment
protects against. See Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d 403,
410 (7th Cir. 2014) (slippery floors are not a hazardous
condition of confinement); Christopher v. Buss, 384
F.3d 879, 882 (7th Cir. 2004)(“A ‘protrusive
lip' on a softball field, even if hazardous when a ball
hits it in a certain way, does not amount to a condition
objectively serious enough to implicate the Eighth
Duty to Update Address
se plaintiff shall report any change of address within ten
(10) days of any change. The Court must be able to locate the
plaintiff to communicate with him. If the plaintiff fails to
keep the Court informed of his current address, the action
may be subject ...