Johnson v. Le.C.I. Medical Department et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
JEREMIAH JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LeCI MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 1:25-cv-642
District Judge Susan J. Dlott
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, an Ohio prisoner currently housed at the Lebanon Correctional Institution
(LeCI), has filed an Amended Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Nurse
Ashley and the LeCI Medical Department. (Doc. 5, at PageID 51). Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants negligently delayed the delivery of his blood pressure medication for a period of
about a week causing him to suffer from dizziness and nausea and to pass out on two occasions.
(See id. at PageID 52-53). By separate Order, Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. (Doc. 2).
This matter is now before the Court for a sua sponte review of the Amended Complaint
to determine whether the Amended Complaint or any portion of it should be dismissed because it
is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B); 1915A(b).
I. 	Legal Standard
Because Plaintiff is a prisoner, and is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must
dismiss the Amended Complaint, or any part of it, that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a
Case: 1:25-cv-00642-SJD-KLL Doc #: 7 Filed: 12/29/25 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) & § 1915A(b). Complaints by pro se
litigants are to be construed liberally and held to less stringent standards than those prepared by
attorneys. Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th Cir. 2004). But this leniency is not
boundless, and “it is not within the purview of the district court to conjure up claims never
presented.” Frengler v. Gen. Motors, 482 F. App’x 975, 977 (6th Cir. 2012).
In reviewing Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint at this stage, the Court must construe it in
his favor, accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, and evaluate whether it contains
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). But the Court is not required to accept factual allegations that are
“clearly irrational or wholly incredible.” Ruiz v. Hofbauer, 325 F. App’x 427, 429–30 (6th Cir.
2009). Rather, “[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
Although “detailed factual allegations” are not required, the Court must dismiss the Amended
Complaint “if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 662 (internal quotation and quotation marks omitted). In the end, “basic pleading
essentials” are still required. Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989).
II. 	Amended Complaint
Plaintiff’s claims arise out of events alleged to have occurred on July 13, 2025. (Doc. 5,
at PageID 52). Plaintiff states that at approximately 4:00 a.m. he filled out a health services
request slip seeking to refill his blood pressure medication. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that he then
Case: 1:25-cv-00642-SJD-KLL Doc #: 7 Filed: 12/29/25 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
gave the slip to Defendant Nurse Ashley when she came to the restrictive housing unit to
distribute medication. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that on the evening of July 16, 2025, he asked
Officer Taylor, who is not named as a Defendant, to call the infirmary because his blood pressure
was high and he felt dizzy. (Id.). According to Plaintiff, Officer Taylor was busy, and when
Plaintiff got up from his bed an hour later he passed out, hitting his head. (Id.). Plaintiff’s
cellmate called for Officer Taylor, and Plaintiff was taken to medical, where he was examined by
Nurse Amanda. (Id.). Plaintiff told Nurse Amanda that he had run out of his blood pressure
medicine but had given Defendant Nurse Ashley a slip requesting a refill. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges
that Nurse Amanda checked the system, did not see the request, and indicated that Nurse Ashley
had never entered it. (Id.). Plaintiff claims he had to wait about a week to get his prescription
refilled. (Id.). As a result of the delay, Plaintiff alleges that he felt ill, threw up, and later passed
out again at recreation. (Id.). For relief, he seeks monetary damages. (Id. at PageID 54).
III. 	Analysis
Liberally construing the Complaint, see Martin, 391 F.3d at 712, the Court understands
Plaintiff to assert an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs against Defendants. (See Doc. 5, at PageID 53 (asserting that because Plaintiff’s medical
problem “was neglected” he suffered “cruel [and] unusual” punishment). Under relevant
screening standards, however, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint should be dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b).
i. 	The LeCI Medical Department Should Be Dismissed.
As an initial matter, Defendant LeCI Medical Department is not sui juris and therefore
may not be sued. See Sweeting v. Dep’t of Rehab. & Correction, No. 4:19CV1454, 2019 WL
Case: 1:25-cv-00642-SJD-KLL Doc #: 7 Filed: 12/29/25 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
5802694, at *4 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 6, 2019) (finding “the prison medical department and mental
health department are not sui juris, meaning they are not legally recognized entities capable of
suing or being sued”); Black v. Montgomery Cty. Common Pleas Ct., No. 3:18-cv-123, 2018 WL
2473560, at *1 (S.D. Ohio June 4, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:18-cv-123,
2018 WL 3193220 (S.D. Ohio June 28, 2018) (finding that entities that are not sui juris are
improper parties). Accordingly, Defendant LeCI Medical Department is not a proper party to
this action and should be dismissed.
ii. 	The Unnamed Defendants Should Be Dismissed.
Next, in the body of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff describes actions taken by Officer
Taylor and Nurse Amanda. But neither of these individuals are named as Defendants. Because
these individuals are not named as Defendants, and thus are not parties to this case, the Court
declines to analyze Plaintiff’s statements with respect to them and recommends that any
purported claims against them be dismissed. See Chapple v. Franklin Cty., No. 2:21-cv-5086,
2022 WL 856815, at *16 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 23, 2022), report and recommendation adopted as
modified sub nom. Chapple v. Franklin Cty. Sheriff’s Officers FCCC 1 & 2, No. 2:21-cv-5086,
2022 WL 16734656 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 7, 2022).
iii. 	Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Claims against Defendant Nurse Ashley
Should Be Dismissed.
Finally, while the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s allegations that his request to refill
his blood pressure medication was not entered into the system by Nurse Ashley causing a delay
in him receiving his medication, Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to state a constitutional
claim.
Case: 1:25-cv-00642-SJD-KLL Doc #: 7 Filed: 12/29/25 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
The Eighth Amendment’s deliberate indifference framework includes both an objective
and subjective prong. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). To satisfy the objective
prong, an inmate must show “that he is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of
serious harm.” Id. The subjective component, on the other hand, requires inmates to show that
prison officials knew of and disregarded an excessive risk, thereby acting with deliberate
indifference. Smith v. DeWine, 476 F. Supp. 3d 635, 661 (S.D. Ohio 2020) (citing Farmer, 511
U.S. at 834, 837-38). Deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment, however, “entails
something more than mere negligence.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835. See also Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 105–06 (1976) (“[I]n the medical context, an inadvertent failure to provide adequate
medical care cannot be said to constitute ‘an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain’ or to be
‘repugnant to the conscience of mankind.’”) (internal citations omitted).
The Amended Complaint is devoid of allegations suggesting that Nurse Ashley
deliberately failed to enter Plaintiff’s medical request into the system. For instance, there are no
allegations that Nurse Ashley was unkind to Plaintiff or apathetic to his needs on the morning of
July 13, 2025, or at any other time. Indeed, Plaintiff himself couches his allegations in terms of
“neglect,” not intentional omission. (See Doc. 5, at PageID 53).
Under these circumstances, Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant Ashley “neglected” to
enter his refill order into the system on July 13, 2025 (Id. at PageID 53) sound in mere
negligence, which is insufficient to rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. See Lee
v. Ouellette MSP, No. 08-cv-10220, 2008 WL 1820886, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 22, 2008)
(finding allegations that the defendant doctor “forgot” to arrange for additional medical treatment
Case: 1:25-cv-00642-SJD-KLL Doc #: 7 Filed: 12/29/25 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>

6
for the plaintiff sounded in negligence and would not support an Eighth Amendment violation).
Accordingly, Defendant Nurse Ashley should be dismissed from this action.
IV. 	Conclusion
Accordingly, in sum, it is RECOMMENDED that (1) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment
claims against Defendant LeCI Medical Department be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, (2) any purported claims with respect to
unnamed Defendants be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, and (3) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against
Defendant Nurse Ashley be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1).
In light of the recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims, it is FURTHER
RECOMMENDED that the Court DECLINE to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any
state-law negligence claims that Plaintiff seeks to assert and DISMISS those claims WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
The Court should further certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that for the foregoing
reasons an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in
good faith. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 610-11 (6th Cir. 1997).
PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections
to this Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of the filing date
of this R&R. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion by either side
for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s) of the R&R objected to, and
Case: 1:25-cv-00642-SJD-KLL Doc #: 7 Filed: 12/29/25 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>

7
shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. A party must
respond to an opponent’s objections within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a
copy of those objections. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may
forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638
F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
December 29, 2025
KAREN L. LITKOVITZ
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 1:25-cv-00642-SJD-KLL Doc #: 7 Filed: 12/29/25 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>