UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

PAUL DAVID JOHNSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-122 RM 

v. )

)

DR. CARTER, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Paul David Johnson, a pro se prisoner, filed an amended complaint under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. (DE 12.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review a prisoner complaint

and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such

relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for the

dismissal of a complaint, or any portion of a complaint, for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted. Courts apply the same standard under § 1915A as when

addressing a motion under Rule 12(b)(6). Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th

Cir. 2006). To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must state a

claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Bissessur v. Indiana Univ. Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d

599, 602-03 (7th Cir. 2009). In deciding whether the complaint states a claim, the court must

bear in mind that “[a] document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se

complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than

-1-
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In order

to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: “(1) that defendants deprived him of

a federal constitutional right; and (2) that the defendants acted under color of state law.”

Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006). 

Mr. Johnson is an inmate at the Kosciusko County Jail. He alleges that in March

2013, he was being held at the Elkhart County Jail as a pretrial detainee. When Mr. Johnson

was booked into the Elkhart County Jail on March 9, 2013, he explained that he was allergic

to all penicillins. This was documented in Mr. Johnson’s medical records. On March 18,

2013, he saw the dentist, Dr. Carter, who was aware of Mr. Johnson’s allergy but

nevertheless prescribed him Amoxicillin, a form of penicillin. A few days later, Mr.

Johnson broke out in a rash, was in extreme pain, and had bloody stool, which he believes

all resulted from taking the medication. He experienced these conditions for months. Mr.

Johnson alleges that Dr. Carter’s prescribing him Amoxicillin violates the Eighth

Amendment. He has sued both Dr. Carter and his employer, Correct Care Solutions.

Because Mr. Johnson was a pretrial detainee, the Fourteenth rather than the Eighth

Amendment applies. Lewis v. Downey, 581 F.3d 467, 473-474 (7th Cir. 2009). The standards

are functionally equivalent, and “anything that would violate the Eighth Amendment

would also violate the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. at 475. A defendant violates an

inmate’s rightto medical care under either Amendment when he is deliberately indifferent

to the plaintiff’s serious medical need. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-105 (1976).

Conduct is deliberately indifferent “when the official has acted in an intentional or

-2-
criminally reckless manner, i.e., the defendant must have known that the plaintiff was at

serious risk of being harmed and decided not to do anything to prevent that harm from

occurring even though he could have easily done so.” Board v. Farnham, 394 F.3d 469, 478

(7th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). For a medical professional to be liable

for deliberate indifference to an inmate’s medical needs, he or she must make “a decision

that represents such a substantial departure from accepted professionaljudgment,practice,

or standards, as to demonstrate that the person responsible actually did not base the

decision on such a judgment.” Jackson v. Kotter, 541 F.3d 688, 697 (7th Cir. 2008). 

Mr. Johnson alleges that Dr. Carter was aware of his allergy to penicillin but

nevertheless prescribed it for him anyway, which caused Mr. Johnson to suffer a rash,

bloody stools and extreme pain for months. Accepting his allegations as true, he has

alleged a plausible deliberate indifference claim, and he will be permitted to proceed

against Dr. Carter for damages.

Mr. Johnson also brings suit against Correct Care Solutions because it is Dr. Carter’s

employer. Like a municipal entity, a corporate entity acting under color of state law cannot

be held liable based solely on a theory of respondeat superior. Monell v. N.Y. City Dep’t of

Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Woodward v. Corr. Med. Servs. of Ill., Inc., 368 F.3d 917,

927 (7th Cir. 2004). Correct Care Solutions can’t be held liable solely because it is Dr.

Carter’s employer.

For these reasons, the court:

(1) GRANTS Paul David Johnson leave to proceed against Dr. Carter in his

-3-
individual capacity for compensatory and punitive for denying him adequate

medical care on March 18, 2013, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment;

(2) DISMISSES Correct Care Solutions;

(3) DISMISSES all other claims; 

(4) DIRECTS the clerk to transmit the summons and USM-285 for Dr. Carter

to the United States Marshals Service along with a copy of the amended complaint

(DE 12) and this order;

(5) DIRECTS the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service of process on Dr.

Carter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); and

(6) ORDERS, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), that Dr. Carter respond, as

provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only

to the claims for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this

screening order.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: October 29 , 2015. /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge

United States District Court

-4-