Clifton v. Does

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CLARENCE CLIFTON, R51621, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Case No. 25-cv-1888-DWD
)
JOHN/JANE DOE MEDICAL STAFF, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Clarence Clifton, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(IDOC), brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations
of his constitutional rights at Pinckneyville Correctional Center. 	Specifically, Plaintiff
alleges that the defendants are not providing adequate care for blood loss when he
defecates. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is now before the Court for preliminary review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 	Under Section 1915A, the Court is required to screen
prisoner complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b).
Any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law
is immune from such relief must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). At this juncture,
the factual allegations of the pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. Rodriguez v.
Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
Case 3:25-cv-01888-DWD Document 7 Filed 11/05/25 Page 1 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>

A NALYSIS
Plaintiff alleges that shortly after he arrived at Pinckneyville, he noticed excessive
bleeding when he defecated on January 17, 2025. He summoned an officer, who in turn
summoned a nurse that placed him on sick call for the next day. On January 18, 2025, he
was seen by a Jane Doe nurse on sick call who provided fiber and stool softeners and told
him he would have to wait until the weekend was over to see the doctor. (Doc. 1 at 8).
Plaintiff alleges that he told her that he was in severe pain, he was nauseous, and he was
still experiencing heavy bleeding, but she did not offer any other care. Plaintiff states that
he finally saw the John Doe doctor, though he does not provide a date. He alleges that
the doctor promised to send Plaintiff for an outside evaluation, but as of the first week of
September 2025, Plaintiff claims he still has not been seen further. He alleges that he is
still suffering, and that the defendants’ conduct has delayed his access to necessary care.
He seeks immediate injunctive relief in the form of an order that he immediately receive
adequate emergency care at an outside facility.
In support, Plaintiff attached a grievance about his desire for care. The Warden
deemed the grievance an emergency on January 24, 2025 (Doc. 1 at 11), but the grievance
office did not respond until March 3, 2025 (Doc. 1 at 13). 	The response indicated that
Plaintiff had been seen by a nurse and had been referred twice “to a provider,” but there
was no indication Plaintiff was actually seen by a provider. (Doc. 1 at 13).
Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court will designate the following
claims:
Case 3:25-cv-01888-DWD Document 7 Filed 11/05/25 Page 2 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>

Claim 1: 	Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Defendant Jane Doe nurse for not providing Plaintiff with
any pain relief or immediate care on January 18, 2025;
Claim 2: 	Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Defendant 	John 	Doe 	doctor 	for 	promising 	an 	outside
medical appointment, and failing to follow through with
any care since January of 2025.
The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders
unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. Any claim that is mentioned
in the Complaint but not addressed in this Order is considered dismissed without
prejudice as inadequately pled under Twombly. 	See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007) (an action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does
not plead “enough facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face”).
Analysis
An Eighth Amendment claim arising from the denial of medical care consists of
an objective and a subjective component. Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 439–40 (7th Cir.
2010). A plaintiff must show that he suffered from a serious medical condition (i.e., an
objective standard) and also show that each defendant responded with deliberate
indifference (i.e., a subjective standard). 	Id. 	To satisfy the subjective component, a
prisoner must demonstrate that an official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to
inmate health. 	Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2005). 	Neither medical
malpractice, nor mere disagreement with a doctor’s medical judgment will amount to
deliberate indifference. 	Id. 	Additionally, an inmate is not entitled to demand specific
Case 3:25-cv-01888-DWD Document 7 Filed 11/05/25 Page 3 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>

care, and a medical professional may choose from a range of acceptable courses of care.
Walker v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 940 F.3d 954, 965 (7th Cir. 2019).
Plaintiff’s complaint generically alleges in the caption that John or Jane Doe
medical staff are at fault for failing to provide care after he reported severe pain and
excessive bleeding when he defecated in January of 2025. Typically, the blanket naming
of a large group of Doe defendants is inadequate to state a claim because § 1983 claims
rely heavily on personal responsibility. However, here, the Plaintiff clearly discusses a
Jane Doe nurse that he saw on January 18, 2025, and a John Doe doctor that he presumably
saw within a few days. He faults these two for failing to address his severe pain, heavy
bleeding, and nausea in a timely fashion, and alleges that his problems have continued
untreated through September of 2025. 	He attaches a grievance that suggests he saw
nursing staff in March of 2025, but it does not clearly discuss ongoing care or future
appointments. 1 Given that Plaintiff alleges a present medical condition that he claims is
causing him pain and is resulting in heavy bleeding, the Court will accept his complaint
as adequate. The Clerk of Court will be directed to replace the generic “John/Jane Does”
Defendant with Jane Doe 1 (the nurse) and John Doe 1 (the doctor). The Clerk will also
be directed to add the Warden of Pinckneyville to the case in official capacity to help
identify the John and Jane Doe and to implement any potential injunctive relief.
1 The grievance is significant to the Court’s initial treatment of this case because the Warden deemed it an
emergency in January of 2025, but it did not get a response from a grievance officer until March of 2025.
(Doc. 1 at 13). The response made it seem that Plaintiff was still waiting to be seen by a doctor or for follow-
up care.
Case 3:25-cv-01888-DWD Document 7 Filed 11/05/25 Page 4 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>

Plaintiff shall have 21 days to file a Notice giving a physical description of Jane
Doe and John Doe, such as hair color, height, appearance, etc.. This information will be
used to assist in naming these individuals. Failure to timely file this information could
result in the dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute.
As to Plaintiff’s request for emergency injunctive relief (Doc. 1 at 9-10), Plaintiff
has not filed a freestanding motion, and although he claims that his problem was still
untreated as of September of 2025, he did not give much information about his current
medical state. Generally, to seek emergency or temporary relief while a case proceeds,
an inmate should file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. Here, Plaintiff
has not filed a freestanding motion. The most he has done is to allege that he still had not
received treatment as of September 2025, and thus he has been left suffering. While the
Court does not doubt that he may be experiencing discomfort, pain, or other ill effects if
his allegations are true, it will not direct a response to Plaintiff’s request for emergency
care unless he files a separate motion. If Plaintiff wishes to file a motion for preliminary
injunctive relief, he should provide details about his current physical state, including if
he has been seen by any medical providers recently for his bleeding or pain, and how his
condition has changed since January of 2025.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Claims 1 and 2 of the Complaint (Doc. 1)
survive against Defendants Jane Doe and John Doe. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to
REPLACE the generic “Jane or John Does Defendant” with Jane Doe 1, John Doe 1, and
the Warden of Pinckneyville (in official capacity).
Case 3:25-cv-01888-DWD Document 7 Filed 11/05/25 Page 5 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>

Plaintiff shall have 21 days to file a Notice with as much descriptive information
as possible about Jane Doe 1 and John Doe 1. Plaintiff may also file a motion for injunctive
relief if he believes it is still necessary.
The 	Clerk 	of 	Court 	is 	DIRECTED 	to 	prepare 	for 	Defendant 	Warden 	of
Pinckneyville (official capacity only): (1) Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to
Waive Service of a Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service of Summons). The Clerk
is DIRECTED to mail these forms, a copy of the Complaint (Doc. 1), and this
Memorandum and Order to Defendants’ place of employment as identified by Plaintiff.
If a Defendant fails to sign and return the Waiver of Service of Summons (Form 6) to the
Clerk within 30 days from the date the forms were sent, the Clerk shall take appropriate
steps to effect formal service on Defendant, and the Court will require Defendant to pay
the full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
If a Defendant cannot be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff, the
employer shall furnish the Clerk with the Defendant’s current work address, or, if not
known, the Defendant’s last-known address. 	This information shall be used only for
sending the forms as directed above or for formally effecting service. Any documentation
of the address shall be retained only by the Clerk. 	Address information shall not be
maintained in the court file or disclosed by the Clerk.
Defendants are ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to
the Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g).
Case 3:25-cv-01888-DWD Document 7 Filed 11/05/25 Page 6 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>

Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 244, Defendants need only respond to the issues
stated in this Merits Review Order.
If judgment is rendered against Plaintiff, and the judgment includes the payment
of costs under Section 1915, Plaintiff will be required to pay the full amount of the costs,
regardless of whether his application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)(A).
Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to inform the Clerk
of 	Court 	and 	each 	opposing 	party 	of 	any 	address 	changes; 	the 	Court 	will 	not
independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later
than 14 days after a change of address occurs. 	Failure to comply with this order will
cause a delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in dismissal of this
action for failure to prosecute. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter the standard HIPAA Order in this case
because it will involve the exchange of medical records.
Plaintiff must file a Notice within 21 days giving as much identifying information
as possible about Jane Doe and John Doe. 	Galloway will then be given a deadline to
respond. Plaintiff must also pay his $101.01 filing fee within 30 days, or this case will
be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 5, 2025 	/s/ David W. Dugan
________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-01888-DWD Document 7 Filed 11/05/25 Page 7 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>

NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF
The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the appropriate defendants of your
lawsuit and serve them with a copy of your complaint. After service has been achieved,
the defendants will enter their appearance and file an Answer to the complaint. It will
likely take at least 60 days from the date of this Order to receive the defendants’ Answers,
but it is entirely possible that it will take 90 days or more. When all of the defendants
have filed Answers, the Court will enter a Scheduling Order containing important
information on deadlines, discovery, and procedures. Plaintiff is advised to wait until
counsel has appeared for the defendants before filing any motions, to give the defendants
notice and an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed before defendants’
counsel has filed an appearance will generally be denied as premature. Plaintiff need not
submit any evidence to the Court at his time, unless otherwise directed by the Court.
The Court wishes to remind the Plaintiff that litigation is often viewed a series of hurdles
that the Plaintiff must clear to get to another hurdle. Initial screening is such a hurdle, but
it is a very low one for the Plaintiff to clear. As noted above, surviving initial screening
only requires the bare statement of a claim that, if proven, could entitle Plaintiff to some
relief. At trial, he will need to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the facts alleged
actually occurred and that those facts satisfy the legal requirements for recovery. Trial is
the highest and most difficult of hurdles for any Plaintiff to clear.
Case 3:25-cv-01888-DWD Document 7 Filed 11/05/25 Page 8 of 8 Page ID
#<pageID>