Bond’s complaint alleges that both Dr. Doughty and Dr. Gonzalez
were aware of Mr. Bond’s medical condition and failed to adequately
treat it. Under the liberal federal notice pleading rules, this is
a sufficient allegation of deliberate indifference to support Mr.
Bond’s § 1983 claim. See Scott v. City of Chicago, 195 F.3d 950,
952 (7th Cir. 1999) (“[A}] pleading need contain only enough to
allow the defendant[s] to understand the gravamen of the
plaintiff’s complaint.”).

Dr. Doughty and Dr. Gonzalez argue that various attachments to
Mr. Bond’s complaint undermine his claims and show that he did in
fact receive treatment at Pinckneyville. First, they point to a
letter from Christine Mitchell, a nurse at Pinckneyville, to Mr.
Bond indicating that she has reviewed his file and that he has
“been provided medical treatment. and numerous evaluations by
several different physicians.” Further, she notes that he has been
purchasing food deemed inappropriate for someone with acid reflux,
and that he was given Maalox for his stomach. She also notes that
the doctor evaluated his back, and concludes that “I feel your
issues have been addressed here as well as [at] other institutions
and proper medical [care] has been given.” Second, Dr. Doughty and
Dr. Gonzalez point to a letter .from Kay Ann Fairless of the
Administrative Review Board Office of Inmate Issues, to Mr. Bond

indicating that on the day he was transferred to Pinckneyville, he

Snipes v. DeTella, 95 F.3d 586, 590 (7th Cir. 1996).

4



Doughty and Dr. Gonzalez move to dismiss the official capacity
claims against them. State officials are not amenable to suit for
damages under § 1983 in their official capacity. Arizonans for
Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 69 n.24 (1997). State
officials in their official capacity are, however, amenable to suit
for injunctive relief. Power v. Summers, 226 F.3d 815, 819 (7th
Cir. 2000) (“({0]fficial-capacity suits against state officials that
seek only injunctive relief are permitted by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and
not forbidden by the Eleventh Amendment.”) (internal citations
omitted) .3

Mr. Bond seeks injunctive relief ordering that he be
“schedule[d] to see medical personnel with qualified expertise for
his serious medical problems and conditions.” Dr. Doughty and Dr.
Gonzalez argue that injunctive relief is inappropriate because Mr.
Bond has alleged only past harm, unaccompanied by a continuing
adverse affect. See O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 495-96
(1974). While Mr. Bond clearly alleges an ongoing violation of his
Eighth Amendment rights, (Compl. 4 3), Dr. Doughty and Dr. Gonzalez

base their argument on the fact that there is no ongoing violation

3 Mr. Bond also argues that he may pursue an official
Capacity suit against Dr. Doughty and Dr. Gonzalez if he alleges
injury resulting from an official policy, custom or practice
pursuant to Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658
(1978). Discussion of Monell is inapposite, however, as Monell
applies only to local government officials. Will v. Michigan Dept.
of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70 (1989) (distinguishing Monell from
rule prohibiting official capacity suits for damages against state
officials under § 1983).



claim which would entitle him to relief.’” Alvarado v. Litscher,
267 F.3d 648, 651 (7th Cir. 2001) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). Pro se complaints are liberally construed.
Id.

Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment when their
conduct demonstrates “deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs of prisoners.” Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1369 (7th
Cir. 1997) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)).
This standard encompasses two elements: whether the prisoner’s
medical need was sufficiently serious, and whether the official
acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind, i.e., deliberate
indifference. Id. Dr. Doughty and Dr. Gonzalez do not argue that
Mr. Bond fails to allege sufficiently serious medical need.?
Instead, they argue that Mr. Bond’s complaint does not adequately
allege deliberate indifference. ‘Deliberate indifference is a
subjective standard, requiring that an official “know[] of and
disregard[] an excessive risk to inmate health.” Farmer v.

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).? Construed liberally, Mr.

* Such an argument would likely be fruitless at this stage
anyway. The Seventh Circuit has cautioned that “given the liberal
standards governing federal notice pleading (particularly in
conjunction with the leniency with which pro se complaints must be
evaluated), the ‘seriousness’ determination will often be ill-
suited for resolution at the pleading stage ....” Gutierrez, 111
F.3d at 1372 n.7.

2? While Farmer was a case alleging deliberate indifference in
failing to protect plaintiff from assault by other inmates, it has
been held to apply to medical treatment cases as well. See, e.g.,

3



was evaluated by health care staff and he had no complaints.
Finally, Dr. Doughty and Dr. Gonzalez point to a letter from Julius
Flagg, Assistant Warden of Programs at Pinckneyville, to Jamesetta
Bond, Mr. Bond’s wife, indicating that health care staff “has
addressed more than once inmate Bond’s issues,” that the specialist
he saw in October 2000 “only recommended a diet for reflux,” and
that he was given a physical exam and would be given a complete
exam once his lab work is complete. Mr. Flagg concluded by stating
“I feel that inmate Bond is receiving adequate medical services
here at Pinckneyville Correctional Center.”

It is true that “a plaintiff may plead himself out of court by
attaching documents to the complaint that indicate that he or she
is not entitled to judgment.” N, Ind. Gun & Outdoor Shows, Inc.,
163 F.3d 449, 455 (7th Cir. 1998) (hereinafter NIGOS). Further
“(ijt is a well-settled rule that when a written instrument
contradicts allegations in the complaint to which it is attached,
the exhibit trumps the allegations.” Id. at 454. The Seventh
Circuit has cautioned, however, against reading the rule too
broadly. Id. at 455. In NIGOS, the court distinguished between
attached documents that themselves form the basis of the claim,
such as contracts or loan agreements, and documents attached for
reasons unrelated to their truth. Thus, for example, a written
contract attached to a complaint will defeat invocation of the

Statute of Frauds, and a document disclosing what the complaint



with respect to them; Mr. Bond has been transferred back to
Stateville, and there is no allegation either that they will
practice medicine at Stateville, or that Mr. Bond will return to
Pinckneyville.

Dr. Doughty and Dr. Gonzalez are correct. The allowance of
official capacity suits against state officials for injunctive
relief is an exception to the general rule of Eleventh Amendment
immunity, carved out in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). This
exception “permits federal courts to enjoin state officials to
conform their conduct to requirements of federal law.” Milliken v.
Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 289 (1977). Thus, were Mr. Bond currently
housed at Pinckneyville, I could enjoin Dr. Doughty and Dr.
Gonzalez to provide him with treatment in conformity with federal
law. As Mr. Bond is currently housed at Stateville, however, Dr.
Doughty and Dr. Gonzalez are not proper defendants for official
capacity suits seeking an injunction ordering treatment.

IV. Conclusion
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN ParT. Plaintiff’s

official capacity claims against Dr. Doughty and Dr. Gonzalez are

dismissed.
ENTER ORDER:
_ -Z Burhles
Elaine E. Bucklo
United States District Judge
Dated: April /£ , 2003



Minute Ordee Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Mlinois

Name of Assigned Judge ine E Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge Elaine E. Bucklo than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 5357 DATE 4/16/2003
CASE Bond vs. Dr. Aguinaldo, et al.
TITLE ;
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.)
DOCKET ENTRY: soba
qd) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above,]
(2) a Brief in support of motion due
(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due
(4) im Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) a Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at :
(7) QO Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) Qo {Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to Lat
(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OOFRCP4(m) CO) Local Rule 41.1 CIFRCP4i(a)(1)  FRCP41(a)(2).
do wf {Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part
defendants’ motion to dismiss complaint. Plaintiff's official capacity claims against Dr. Doughty and Dr.
Gonzalez are therefore dismissed. The court will appoint counsel to represent plaintiff.
(1) @ [For further detail see order attached to the original, minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.
6

No notices required. umber of notiens

a | Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

courtroom
deputy’s
initials

MP) in
Date/tinie feceived in
central Clerk's Office

railing deputy initia’



alleges it concealed will defeat the allegation of concealment.
Id. While the Seventh Circuit found that the rule that a plaintiff
adopts as true every word of an attached document in those
circumstances makes sense, the court was “not inclined to apply
such a rule in the case of letters written by the opposition for
what could be self-serving purposes.” Id. In NIGOS, the city of
South Bend refused to allow gun shows in a city facility. Th
plaintiff alleged that the policy was an impermissible content-
based restriction on speech, but attached letters to its complaint
written by city officials indicating that the no firearm and
ammunition policy had been adopted for safety reasons. The court
held that the statements in the attached letters did not preempt
plaintiff’s allegation of improper speech restrictions. Id. at
457. Likewise, here, unilateral statements from corrections
officials that Mr. Bond received appropriate treatment do not
preempt the allegations in his complaint that Dr. Doughty and Dr.
Gonzalez were aware of his medical conditions and failed to treat
them adequately. Mr. Bond's complaint therefore sufficiently
states a claim against Dr. Doughty and Dr. Gonzalez for deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendments.
III. Official Capacity Claims
Mr. Bond’s complaint states that he is suing Dr. Doughty and

Dr. Gonzalez in their “personal and official capacities.” Dr.



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS |
a bi
EASTERN DIVISION pect ETED

ET

APR 1 7 2003

JACKEY L. BOND,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 02 C 5357

DR. AGUINALDO, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Jackey Bond, a..,state inmate at Stateville
Correctional Center in Joliet, acting pro. se, sued various
physicians and prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
deliberate indifference to his medical needs in violation of his
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Defendants Stephen Doughty
and Roselina Gonzalez, both doctors, now move to dismiss for
failure to state a claim on which. relief can be granted, or at
least to dismiss the official capacity claims against them. I
grant the motion in part, dismissing only the official capacity
claims.

I. Background

On a:motion to dismiss, “I. take all allegations in the

complaint as true. Wilczynski v..Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 93 F.3d

397, 401 (7th Cir. 1996). The..; vant facts as alleged by Mr.

Bond are as follows. When Mr

Bond was first transferred to

Stateville in 1999, he complained. of back and throat pain that went



untreated by other defendants not party to this motion. In October
of 2000, he saw an ear, nose and throat (E.N.T.) specialist who
found two cysts on his vocal chords and indicated that he was
regurgitating acid from his stomach that was eating away at the
ljining in his throat. The £.N.T. specialist prescribed Tagament
for Mr. Bond and suggested that he see a gastroenterologist if his
acid reflux problem did not improve. Mr. Bond also saw a “voice
specialist” who likewise recommended seeing a gastroenterologist,
because until the acid reflux problem was solved, there was nothing
he could do for Mr. Bond’s throat.

In February 2001, Mr. Bond was transferred to Pinckneyville
Correctional Center. At Pinckneyville, Mr. Bond saw Dr. Doughty
and Dr. Gonzalez. Mr. Bond alleges that Dr. Doughty and Dr.
Gonzalez failed to respond to Mr. Bond’s requests for treatment and
ignored the recommendations of the E.N.T. and voice specialists at
Stateville that Mr. Bond see a gastroenterologist. Mr. Bond
alleges that his throat condition worsened, and that he can hardly
swallow or talk. In February 2002, Mr. Bond was returned to
Stateville.

II. Failure to,State a Claim

Dr. Doughty and Dr. Gonzalez argue that Mr. Bond’s complaint
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A claim
may be dismissed “only if ‘it appears beyond a reasonable doubt

that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his