Richmond v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

DARNELL RICHMOND, #K89371, )

)

Plaintiff, )

vs. ) Case No. 20-00143-SMY

)

WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC, )

ROB JEFFREYS, )

FRANK LAWRENCE, )

MOHAMMED SIDDIQUI, )

ANGELA CRAIN, )

J B PRITZKER, )

JOHN DOE #1, )

ZIMMER, and )

WARDEN OF MENARD )

CORRECTIONAL CENTER, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

YANDLE, District Judge:

Plaintiff Darnell Richmond, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”)

currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard), filed the instant lawsuit pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights and violations of the

Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. and the Rehabilitation Act

(“RA”), 29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq.1 (Doc. 1). Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive

relief. (Id.).

This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A, which requires the Court to screen prisoner Complaints to filter out nonmeritorious

1 Although Plaintiff mentions only the ADA, “the [RA] is available to him, and courts are supposed to analyze a

litigant's claims and not just the legal theories that he propounds, especially when he is litigating pro se.” Norfleet v.

Walker, 684 F.3d 688, 690 (7th Cir. 2012) (internal citations omitted).

claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of the Complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious,

fails to state a claim for relief, or requests money damages from an immune defendant must be

dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

The Complaint

Plaintiff makes the following allegations in his Complaint (Doc. 1): Due to deliberate

understaffing of the Menard health care unit (“HCU”) by Wexford, Plaintiff was denied medical

treatment for his serious medical needs. Additionally, this policy resulted in Plaintiff being seen

by a nurse instead of a doctor who could properly examine and diagnose his injuries and medical

conditions. Wexford is aware that there is not an adequate number of medical staff to provide

proper medical care for the inmate population. Wexford understaffs the Menard HCU to save

money. It is public knowledge as a result of the litigation in Lippert v. Baldwin that Wexford, who

was hired by Jeffreys, Pritzker, and Lawrence, understaffs all IDOC facilities. The policy of

understaffing has been allowed by Jeffreys, Pritzker, and Lawrence, and they turned a blind eye to

this serious problem resulting in denial of access to medical care for Plaintiff’s serious medical

needs.

Defendants were made aware that as a direct result of the extreme overcrowding, inmates

such as Plaintiff were not receiving adequate medical care and turned a blind eye to it. Defendants

were also made aware that Plaintiff and other inmates were denied access to medical care because

of the understaffing of the Menard HCU by Wexford.

While at the law library on February 21, 2019, Plaintiff was instructed to sit in an assigned

chair by C/O John Doe 1. Plaintiff informed Doe that the chair was unstable and asked if he could

sit in a different chair. Doe told Plaintiff to sit in the chair or he would be written a disciplinary

ticket and sent to segregation. Plaintiff sat in the chair and it collapsed causing Plaintiff to fall

backwards. He hit his head and back, and was knocked unconscious. A nurse called an ambulance

to take Plaintiff to Chester Memorial Hospital. Due to the understaffing by Wexford, no doctor

was on site when Plaintiff was injured. At the hospital, Plaintiff was diagnosed with a cervical

and lumbar sprain. The CT scans showed mild multilevel spondylosis, small posterior disc

osteophyte complexes most pronounced at C3-C4 and C4-C5, mild osseous encroachment of the

neural foramen bilaterally at C3-C4, small posterior disc herniation at L4-L5 resulting in mild

spinal stenosis, and small left eccentric posterior disc herniation at L5-S1 resulting in mild L5-S1

neuroforaminal narrowing on the left.

When Plaintiff returned to Menard, a nurse informed him that due to understaffing, there

was no doctor or nurse practitioner available to see him for 5 days. This resulted in a denial of

medical care and unnecessary pain. Subsequently, Dr. Siddiqui, Zimmer, and Crain told Plaintiff

there was nothing wrong with him and disregarded the instructions of the emergency room doctor

for after care.

Plaintiff was not relocated to a lower gallery to alleviate the pain he was experiencing from

walking up and down five flights of stairs to his cell. He was told to put ice and heat on his injury,

but was not given a permit or a heating pad or ice. Walking the stairs caused severe pain in his

back. His legs would also shake, making it difficult to walk. He could not turn his head or neck

without severe pain. He had migraine type headaches and blurred vision.

Dr. Siddiqui and Zimmer gave Plaintiff over-the-counter (“OTC”) medications, including

Tylenol and Ibuprofen to treat the pain from the injuries to his head and back. He advised them

on countless occasions that the OTC medication was not managing his pain and he needed

something stronger. They denied him any other medication because Wexford would not authorize

it. He wrote letters to Dr. Siddiqui, Zimmer, and Crain telling them he was in extreme pain from

his injuries, but they ignored him. Dr. Siddiqui, Zimmer, and Crain continued an ineffective course

of treatment leaving Plaintiff in severe pain. He was told by several nurses and other medical staff

that Wexford saves money by only providing OTC pain medication and denying requests for

prescription pain medication. Dr. Siddiqui, Zimmer, and Crain told Plaintiff they believed he was

lying about his pain as a means to deny additional medical treatment in accordance with Wexford

policies and/or practices.

Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court designates the following claims in

this pro se action:

Count 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs

claim against Wexford, Jeffreys, Pritzker, and Lawrence due to

prison overcrowding and understaffing of medical providers by

Wexford that led to the denial and/or delay of medical care for

Plaintiff’s injuries and chronic pain.

Count 2: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifferent to serious medical needs

claim against Dr. Siddiqui, Zimmer, Crain, and Wexford for

denying Plaintiff adequate medical care for his injuries and chronic

pain.

Count 3: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against John Doe

for making Plaintiff sit in an unstable chair ultimately leading to

Plaintiff falling and being injured.

Count 4: ADA and/or RA claim against Defendants for failing to

accommodate Plaintiff’s disabilities as a result of his injuries and

chronic pain.

Any other claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be

considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under the Twombly pleading

standard. See Bell Atlantic 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.”).

Discussion

Counts 1 and 2

Prison officials and medical staff violate the Eight Amendment’s prohibition against cruel

and unusual punishment when they act with deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical

needs. Rasho v. Elyea, 856 F.3d 469, 475 (7th Cir. 2017). To state such a claim, a prisoner must

plead facts and allegations suggesting that (1) he suffered from an objectively serious medical

condition, and (2) the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Id.

“[D]eliberate indifference may be found where an official knows about unconstitutional conduct

and facilitates, approves, condones, or turns a blind eye to it.” Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768,

781 (7th Cir. 2015).

The allegations in the Complaint are sufficient for Plaintiff to proceed on the deliberate

indifference claim in Count 1 against Jeffreys, Pritzker, and Lawrence and in Count 2 against Dr.

Siddiqui, Zimmer, and Crain. Additionally, Plaintiff has stated a viable claim in Counts 1 and 2

against Wexford. See Woodward v. Corr. Med. Serv. of Ill., Inc., 368 F.3d 917, 927 (7th Cir. 2004)

(corporation can be held liable for deliberate indifference if it had a policy or practice that caused

the violation).

Count 3

Plaintiff has not stated a claim against John Doe for making him sit in an unstable chair.

At most, John Doe’s conduct constituted negligence and mere negligence does not amount to

deliberate indifference. See Gayton v. McCoy, 593 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2010); Pinkston v. Madry,

440 F.3d 879, 889 (7th Cir. 2006). Therefore, Count 3 will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Count 4

Plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to allow him to proceed on an ADA and/or RA claim.

However, this claim cannot proceed against individual defendants because individual employees

of IDOC cannot be sued under the ADA or the RA. Jaros v. Illinois Dep't of Corrs, 684 F.3d 667,

670 (7th Cir. 2012). Instead, the proper defendant is the relevant state department or agency. See

42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(b); Jaros, 684 F.3d at 670, n. 2 (individual capacity claims are not available;

the proper defendant is the agency or its director (in his official capacity)). Therefore, the proper

defendant is Rob Jeffreys, in his official capacity as the IDOC Director. To the extent Plaintiff

seeks to bring this claim against Wexford, Lawrence, Dr. Siddiqui, Zimmer, Crain, Pritzker, and

John Doe, they will be dismissed.

Injunctive Relief

Because the Complaint includes a request for injunctive relief, the Warden of Menard

Correctional Center, in his/her official capacity, will be added to the docket with regard to the

request for injunctive relief. See Gonzales v. Feinerman, 663 F.3d 311, 315 (7th Cir. 2011)

(holding warden is proper defendant for injunctive relief claim as he would be responsible for

ensuring that any injunctive relief would be carried out).

Official Capacity Claims

Plaintiff raises claims against each defendant in his or her individual and official capacities.

The ADA, RA, and injunctive relief claims are properly brought against Jeffreys and the Warden

of Menard Correctional Center in their official capacities. However, Plaintiff’s claims for

monetary damages may only be pursued against state officials in their individual capacities. Brown

v. Budz, 904 F.3d 904, 918 (7th Cir. 2005); Shockley v. Jones, 823 F.2d 1068, 1070 (7th Cir. 1987).

Accordingly, the official capacity claims against the individual defendants are dismissed without

prejudice.

Disposition

The Complaint states colorable claims in Count 1 against Wexford Health Sources, Inc.,

Rob Jeffreys, Frank Lawrence, and J B Pritzker; in Count 2 against Mohammed Siddiqui, Angela

Crain, and Zimmer; and in Count 4 against Rob Jeffreys in his official capacity as the IDOC

Director. Count 3 and John Doe 1 are DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is

DIRECTED to TERMINATE John Doe as a defendant and to ADD the Warden of Menard

Correctional Center, in his or her official capacity, to the docket for purposes of Plaintiff’s claim

for injunctive relief.

The Clerk shall prepare for Wexford Health Sources, Inc., Rob Jeffreys, Frank Lawrence,

J B Pritzker, Mohammed Siddiqui, Angela Crain, Zimmer, and the Warden of Menard Correctional

Center (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, and this Memorandum and Order to Defendant’s 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 the Defendant, and the Court will require

the 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 and 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). Pursuant to

Administrative Order No. 244, Defendants need only respond to the issues stated in this Merit

Review Order.

Plaintiff is ADVISED that if judgment is rendered against him and the judgment includes

the payment of costs under 28 U.S.C. §1915, he will be required to pay the full amount of the

costs, regardless of whether his application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(f)(2)(A).

Plaintiff is further ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of

Court and the opposing party informed of any change in his address; the Court will not

independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later than 7 days

after a transfer or other change in 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 want of

prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Finally, based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to

ENTER the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and

Accountability Act.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 22, 2020

s/ Staci M. Yandle_____

STACI M. YANDLE

United States District Judge

Notice to Plaintiff

The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the Defendants of your lawsuit and serve

them with a copy of your Complaint. After service has been achieved, Defendants will enter an

appearance and file an Answer to your Complaint. It will likely take at least 60 days from the date

of this Order to receive the Defendants’ Answer, but it is entirely possible that it will take 90 days

or more. When Defendants have filed their 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 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 this time, unless specifically directed to do so.