Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Matthew F. Kennelly Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 1875 DATE 4/20/12

CASE

TITLE

Elbert Williams (#A-72120) vs. Daniel Erickson

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file in forma pauperis [#6] is granted. The Court orders the trust fund officer at Plaintiff’s

current place of incarceration to deduct $11.32 from Plaintiff’s account for payment to the Clerk of Court as an initial

partial filing fee. The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the trust fund officer at Stateville Correctional Center. The

Clerk is directed to issue summons for Defendant Erickson, and the United States Marshals Service is appointed to serve

her. The Clerk shall send Plaintiff Instructions for Submitting Documents, along with a copy of this order. 

O[ For further details see text below.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff, Elbert Williams, presentlyin state custodyat Stateville Correctional Center, has brought this pro

se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges deliberate indifference to a serious medical

condition. More specifically, Plaintiff claims that he arrived at the prison from University of Illinois Hospital

where he had surgery requiring him to wear a colostomy bag. When he arrived at the prison, he asked Defendant

Nurse Erickson to prepare some extra bags for him, as his colostomy bag was full. The bags have to be cut to

fit the colostomy. According to Plaintiff she stated that she did not have scissors and walked away. Plaintiff’s

colostomy bag burst approximately fifteen minutes later while he was being held in a bullpen. He complained

to security staff who took him back to the health care unit. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Erickson

returned the colostomy bags to Plaintiff uncut and left for the day. Plaintiff was then given cut colostomy bags

by another nurse. Plaintiff alleges that due to Defendant Erickson’s deliberate indifference, he spent four hours

covered in his own feces and was not able to clean himself up until he got to his cell and washed himself in the

sink. Defendant also sues Wexford Health Sources,Inc., the contract medical provider for the Illinois Department

of Corrections, presumably in its supervisory capacity.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1),

Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $5.61. The trust fund officer at Plaintiff’s place of incarceration

is authorized and ordered to collect the partial filing fee from Plaintiff’s trust fund account and pay it directly to

the Clerk of Court. After payment of the initial partial filing fee, Plaintiff’s trust fund officer is directed to collect

monthly payments from Plaintiff’s trust fund account in an amount equal to 20% of the precedingmonth’s income

credited to the account. Monthly payments shall be forwarded to the Clerk of Court each time the amount in the

account exceeds $10 until the full $350 filing fee is paid. All payments shall be sent to the Clerk, United States

District Court, 219 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, Illinois 60604, attn: Cashier’s Desk, 20th Floor, and shall clearly

identify Plaintiff’s name and this case number. This payment obligation will follow Plaintiff wherever he may

be transferred. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to conduct a prompt initial review of prisoner complaints

against governmental entities or employees. Here, accepting Plaintiff’s factual allegations as true, the Court finds

12C1875 Elbert Williams (#A-72120) vs. Daniel Erickson Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT

that the complaint states a colorable cause of action under the Civil Rights Act as to Defendant Hardy for

deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Davis v. Carter, 453 F.3d 686, 696 (7th Cir. 2006). While a

more fully developed record may belie the Plaintiff’s allegations, Defendant Erickson must respond to the

complaint. 

However, Defendant Wexford Health Source, Inc. is dismissed as a Defendant. Wexford is not subject

to liability simply because the company employs medical personnel at Stateville. The doctrine of respondeat

superior(blanket supervisory liability) does not apply to actions filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See, e.g., Kinslow

v. Pullara, 538 F.3d 687, 692 (7th Cir. 2008). “A ‘private corporation is not vicariously liable under § 1983 for

its employees’ deprivations of others’ civil rights.’ ” Jackson v. Illinois Medi-Car, Inc., 300 F.3d 760, 766 (7th

Cir. 2002), quoting Iskander v. Vill. of Forest Park, 690 F.2d 126, 128 (7th Cir. 1982). In analyzing a section

1983 claim against a private corporation, the court uses the same principles that would be applied in examining

claims against a municipality. Brown v. Ghosh, No. 09 C 2542, 2010 WL 3893939, *8 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 28, 2010)

(Feinerman, J.), citing Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 822 (7th Cir. 2009). Therefore

an inmate bringing a claim against a corporate entity for a violation of his constitutional rights must show that

the corporation supports a “policy that sanctions the maintenance of prison conditions that infringe upon the

constitutional rights of the prisoners.” Brown, 2010 WL 3893939, at *8, quoting Woodward v. Corr. Med. Servs.

of Ill., Inc., 368 F.3d 917, 927 (7th Cir. 2004) (in turn quoting Estate of Novack ex rel. v. Cnty. of Wood, 226 F.3d

525, 530 (7th Cir. 2000)) (a corporate defendant violates an inmate’s rights “if it maintains a policy that sanctions

the maintenance of prison conditions that infringe upon the constitutional rights of the prisoners”). Because

liability is not premised upon the theory of vicarious liability, the corporate policy “must be the ‘direct cause’ or

‘moving force’ behind the constitutional violation.” Ibid. As Plaintiff alleges a single incident of deliberate

indifference, there can be no policy and consequently, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Wexford.

The Clerk shall issue summons for service of the complaint on Defendant Erickson (hereinafter,

“Defendant”). The Clerk shall also send Plaintiff a Magistrate Judge Consent Form and Instructions for

Submitting Documents along with a copy of this order. 

The United States Marshals Service is appointed to serve Defendant. Any service forms necessary for

Plaintiff to complete will be sent by the Marshal as appropriate to serve Defendant with process. The U.S.

Marshal is directed to make all reasonable efforts to serve Defendant. If Defendant can no longer be found at the

work address provided by Plaintiff, the Illinois Department of Corrections shall furnish the Marshal with

Defendant’s last-known address. The information shall be used only for purposes of effectuating service [or for

proof of service, should a dispute arise] and any documentation of the address shall be retained only by the

Marshal. Address information shall not be maintained in the Court file, nor disclosed by the Marshal. The

Marshal is authorized to mail a request for waiver of service to Defendant in the manner prescribed by FED. R.

CIV. P. 4(d)(2) before attempting personal service. 

Plaintiff is instructed to file all future papers concerning this action with the Clerk of Court in care of the

Prisoner Correspondent. Plaintiff must provide the Court with the original plus a complete judge’s copy,

including any exhibits, of every document filed. In addition, Plaintiff must send an exact copy of anyCourt filing

to Defendant [or to defense counsel, once an attorney has entered an appearance on behalf of Defendant]. Every

document filed with the Court must include a certificate of service stating to whom exact copies were mailed and

the date of mailing. Any paper that is sent directly to the judge or that otherwise fails to comply with these

instructions may be disregarded by the Court or returned to Plaintiff.

12C1875 Elbert Williams (#A-72120) vs. Daniel Erickson Page 2 of 2