UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

ERIQUE DOMINOE RAGGS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case No. 3:15-CV-526 JD

v. )

)

JULIE LAWSON, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Erique Dominoe Raggs, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint alleging that he has been

coughing up blood since October 11, 2015, and has been denied medical treatment at the St. Joseph

County Jail where he is housed. “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 formal pleadings

drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations

omitted). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the merits of a

prisoner complaint. 

Raggs alleges that despite having told several guards and nurses about his condition, the only

response has been to put him in a different cell and to take a specimen for testing. In medical cases,

the Constitution is violated only when a defendant was deliberately indifferent to an inmate’s serious

medical needs. Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1369 (7th Cir. 1997). “[C]onduct is deliberately

indifferent when the official has acted in an intentional or 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) (quotation marks, brackets, and citation

omitted). 

Here, the only defendant listed in the complaint is Warden Julie Lawson. Raggs alleges that

“[s]he hasn’t done anything about the rights of mine her staff violated while I was going through this

medical emergency.” DE 1 at 4. He does not allege that she violated his rights, only that she

supervised employees who did. However, there is no general respondeat superior liability under 42

U.S.C. § 1983, so the allegation that someone else knew about his need for medical treatment does

not state a claim against her. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007). “[P]ublic

employees are responsible for their own misdeeds but not for anyone else’s.” Burks v. Raemisch,

555 F.3d 592, 596 (7th Cir. 2009). Thus, this complaint does not state a claim. 

Nevertheless, it is possible that if Raggs named other defendants and explained what he told

them about his need for medical treatment as well as how they responded and what injury he

suffered as a result, he might be able to state a claim against one of those jail employees. Therefore

he will be granted the opportunity to file an amended complaint. See Luevano v. Wal-Mart, 722 F.3d

1014 (7th Cir. 2013).

For these reasons, the court: 

(1) DIRECTS the clerk to place this cause number on a blank Prisoner Complaint 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 form and send it to Erique Dominoe Raggs; 

(2) GRANTS Erique Dominoe Raggs until January 7, 2016, to file an amended complaint;

and 

2
(3) CAUTIONS Erique Dominoe Raggs that if he does not respond by that deadline, this

case will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the current complaint (DE 1) does

not state a claim. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: November 10, 2015

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

Judge

United States District Court

3