Supervisors are not liable for the errors of their subordinates
How later courts described this case
- Supervisors are not liable for the errors of their subordinates
- supervisor liability not permitted under § 1983
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
GREGORY STAPLETON, )
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) No. 20-3002
)
ABDUR NAWOOR, et. al., )
Defendants. )
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
JAMES E. SHADID, U.S. District Judge:
This cause is before the Court for merit review of the Plaintiff’s complaint. The
Court is required by 28 U.S.C. §1915A to “screen” the Plaintiff’s complaint, and through
such process to identify and dismiss any legally insufficient claim, or the entire action if
warranted. A claim is legally insufficient if it “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §1915A.
Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, claims five Defendants violated his constitutional
rights at Taylorville Correctional Center including Dr. Abdur Nawoor, Medical
Administrator Katie Hackney, Nurse Megan Eggeman, Warden Shelith Hansbro, and
Wexford Health Sources, Inc.
Plaintiff was transferred from Dixon Correctional Center to Taylorville in June of
2019. Plaintiff says prior to the transfer, he was going to an outside doctor for an MRI.
It is not clear from Plaintiff’s complaint and attachments whether the appointment was
scheduled prior to his transfer.
Plaintiff says the “entire left side” of his body is “messed up,” he has pressure on
his lower back, and it takes him 30 minutes to get up every day. (Comp., p. 6). Plaintiff
also says he “can’t move or rise my arm and it feels like it’s on fire or someone is
stabbing me.” (Comp., p. 6). Plaintiff explains the problems began after he slipped and
fell in the Will County Jail in 2018.
When he arrived at Taylorville, Plaintiff repeatedly requested sick call with
Defendants Hackney and Eggeman, but the Defendants refused to provide any care for
his chronic pain. Plaintiff then saw Defendant Dr. Nawoor and explained his condition,
but the doctor said there was nothing he could do for Plaintiff. Plaintiff also wrote
letters to the Warden and Wexford, but received no response
Nonetheless, Plaintiff also admits he was sent to Taylorville Hospital on an
unspecified date and a physical therapist (PT) reviewed exercises for Plaintiff to do for
his condition. Plaintiff says there is no licensed PT at the correctional center and nurses
do not supervise the exercises.
Plaintiff says Dr. Nawoor has still not provided appropriate treatment for his
constant pain and the Defendant has not ordered any follow-up testing. In addition,
Plaintiff says the doctor refuses to provide any treatment for his asthma.
Plaintiff has attached more than 50 pages of exhibits to his complaint which
further clarify his claims. For instance, a July 24, 2019 grievance response indicates
Plaintiff had problems with his left shoulder and lower back since February of 2017.
(Comp, p. 10). Defendant Hackney states there is no indication Plaintiff was approved
for an MRI at Dixon. However, Plaintiff received x-rays at Taylorville which found
mild degenerative changes consistent with mild arthritis. Plaintiff was advised he
should continue with over-the-counter pain medications as well as physical therapy.
Plaintiff was advised to speak to his doctor if he continued to suffer in pain. (Comp, p.
10).
On October 28, 2019, it appears Dr. Ritz from Wexford refused a request for an
MRI of Plaintiff’s left shoulder. (Comp., p. 33). Continued physical therapy was
recommended and Plaintiff was sent to Taylorville Memorial Hospital for “Rehab
Services” in November of 2019. (Comp., p. 36).
A physical therapist’s (PT) report indicates Plaintiff fell in October of 2019 and
further injured his hip and shoulder. The PT notes Plaintiff’s rehabilitation potential is
good if he can continue with prescribed exercises. (Comp., p. 11-12, 39, 42).
For the purposes of notice pleading, Plaintiff has adequately alleged Defendants
Dr. Nawoor, Medical Administrator Hackney, and Nurse Megan Eggeman violated
Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights when they were deliberately indifferent to his
medical conditions. Plaintiff claims all of the Defendants were deliberately indifferent
to his continued pain, and Defendant Dr. Nawoor was also deliberately indifferent to
Plaintiff’s asthma.
Plaintiff has not articulated an official capacity claim and he has failed to
articulate any other claim against Defendants Warden Hansbro and Wexford Health
Sources, Inc. The mere fact that a defendant was a supervisor is insufficient to establish
liability because the doctrine of respondeat superior (supervisor liability) does not apply
to actions filed under 42 USC §1983. See Smith v. Gomez, 550 F.3d 613, 616 (7th Cir.
2008)(supervisor liability not permitted under § 1983); Pacelli v. DeVito, 972 F.2d 871, 877
(7th Cir. 1992)( Supervisors are not liable for the errors of their subordinates). In
addition, the fact that Plaintiff chose to send letters to supervisors does not by itself
establish liability. See Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 595 (7th Cir. 2009).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Pursuant to its merit review of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the
Court finds the Plaintiff alleges Defendants Dr. Nawoor, Medical Administrator
Hackney, and Nurse Megan Eggeman violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment
rights when they were deliberately indifferent to his medical conditions
including pain and asthma. The claim is stated against the Defendants in their
individual capacities only. Any additional claims shall not be included in the
case, except at the Court’s discretion on motion by a party for good cause shown
or pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
2) This case is now in the process of service. Plaintiff is advised to wait until
counsel has appeared for Defendants before filing any motions, in order to give
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 this time, unless
otherwise directed by the Court.
3) The Court will attempt service on Defendants by mailing each Defendant a
waiver of service. Defendants have 60 days from service to file an Answer. If
Defendants have not filed Answers or appeared through counsel within 90 days
of the entry of this order, Plaintiff may file a motion requesting the status of
service. After Defendants have been served, the Court will enter an order setting
discovery and dispositive motion deadlines.
4) With respect to a Defendant who no longer works at the address provided by
Plaintiff, the entity for whom that Defendant worked while at that address shall
provide to the Clerk said Defendant's current work address, or, if not known, said
Defendant's forwarding address. This information shall be used only for
effectuating service. Documentation of forwarding addresses shall be retained
only by the Clerk and shall not be maintained in the public docket nor disclosed
by the Clerk.
5) Defendants shall file an answer within 60 days of the date the waiver is sent by
the Clerk. A motion to dismiss is not an answer. The answer should include all
defenses appropriate under the Federal Rules. The answer and subsequent
pleadings shall be to the issues and claims stated in this Order. In general, an
answer sets forth Defendants' positions. The Court does not rule on the merits of
those positions unless and until a motion is filed by Defendants. Therefore, no
response to the answer is necessary or will be considered.
6) Once counsel has appeared for a Defendant, Plaintiff need not send copies of
his filings to that Defendant or to that Defendant's counsel. Instead, the Clerk will
file Plaintiff's document electronically and send a notice of electronic filing to
defense counsel. The notice of electronic filing shall constitute service on
Defendants pursuant to Local Rule 5.3. If electronic service on Defendants is not
available, Plaintiff will be notified and instructed accordingly.
7) Counsel for Defendants is hereby granted leave to depose Plaintiff at his place
of confinement. Counsel for Defendants shall arrange the time for the deposition.
8) Plaintiff shall immediately notify the Court, in writing, of any change in his
mailing address and telephone number. Plaintiff's failure to notify the Court of a
change in mailing address or phone number will result in dismissal of this lawsuit,
with prejudice.
9) Within 10 days of receiving from Defendants’ counsel an authorization to
release medical records, Plaintiff is directed to sign and return the authorization
to Defendants’ Counsel.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO:
1) Dismiss Defendants Hansbro and Wexford for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted pursuant to by 28 U.S.C. §1915A; 2) Attempt
service on the remaining Defendants pursuant to the standard procedures; 3)
Set an internal court deadline 60 days from the entry of this order for the court
to check on the status of service and enter scheduling deadlines; and 4) Enter
the Court's standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2020.
s/ James E. Shadid
____________________________________________
JAMES E. SHADID
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE