# Perez v. Lawrence

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · January 26, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10153265

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** January 26, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10153265

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding warden is proper defendant for injunctive relief claim as he would be responsible for ensuring that any injunctive relief would be carried out

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JESSE R. PEREZ, #R44289, )
)
Plaintiff, )
vs. ) Case No. 3:20-cv-00728-SMY
)
FRANK LAWRENCE, )
DR. RITZ, DR. SIDDIQUI, )
NURSE ZIMMER, NURSE LOCKE, )
A. CRAIN, )
JANE DOE #1 (Nurse), )
WEXFORD, )
JOHN DOES #1 and #2 (C/O’s), )
COUNSELOR MEYER, )
COUNSELOR CARTER, and )
ANTHONY WILLS, WARDEN OF )
MENARD CORRECTIONAL CENTER, )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

YANDLE, District Judge:
Plaintiff Jesse R. Perez, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections 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. He asserts violations of the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments for Defendants’ deliberate indifference to his medical
conditions and seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.
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
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): Around 2:00 a.m. on
June 25, 2019, Plaintiff woke up to a sharp pain on the right side of his abdomen. (Doc. 1, p. 5).
He asked C/O John Doe #1 to summon medical help. Soon after, Plaintiff told Nurse Jane Doe #1

about his severe pain and repeated vomiting. Nurse Jane Doe #1 told Plaintiff she would give him
pepto-bismol since he had no problems with defecation.
When C/O John Doe #2 brought the pepto-bismol, Plaintiff asked to see another medical
provider due to the severity of his pain, but John Doe #2 ignored the request. Id. Plaintiff then
asked John Doe #1 to summon a med tech, doctor, or someone who could send him to the hospital
because the pepto-bismol had not helped. John Doe #1 responded that nobody was available but
the nurse and if Plaintiff had something serious like appendicitis, he would not be able to talk and
move around as he was and would be urinating blood. John Doe #1 then left the gallery. (Doc. 1,
p. 6).
Later the same day, another officer (Cornstubble, who is not a Defendant) took Plaintiff

for a sick call visit where he was seen by Nurse Practitioner Zimmer. She scheduled Plaintiff to
have an x-ray the following day. (Doc. 1, p. 7). Plaintiff continued to have severe stomach pain
and vomiting. He had the x-ray and a few hours later noticed that a lump had developed in his
right testicle.
Plaintiff saw Nurse Locke1 and told her he needed to go to the hospital, but she refused
because his x-rays were not back. Locke collected a urine sample from Plaintiff that evening
which was reddish in color. Plaintiff told her again about his severe pain, vomiting, loss of
appetite, and lump in his testicle, but Locke did nothing else. (Doc. 1, p. 9).

1 The date of this encounter with Nurse Locke is unclear; Plaintiff states it was on March 22, 2019, but that
is clearly an error. (Doc. 1, p. 8).
On June 28, 2019, Plaintiff reported to the C/O that his symptoms were continuing and his
stomach had become extremely bloated and tender to the touch. The C/O took him to see Zimmer,
who said she would send Plaintiff to the hospital. (Doc. 1, pp. 9-10).
Plaintiff was transported by ambulance to Chester Memorial Hospital (“Chester”) where

doctors determined that his appendix had ruptured and he had an infection. Id. After his
emergency appendectomy, the surgeon informed Plaintiff that the infection had spread to his
kidneys, lungs, stomach, and right testicle. (Doc. 1, p. 11). Plaintiff was then transferred to
Missouri Baptist Hospital because the necessary surgery on his testicle/scrotum could not be done
at Chester. He returned to Menard on July 17, 2019.
In September 2019, Plaintiff inquired of the surgeon at Chester about the plan for more
surgery to move his right testicle back into place in his scrotum.2 The Chester surgeon told
Plaintiff he would have to ask the Missouri Baptist Hospital surgeon who had performed his
scrotum surgery. (Doc. 1, p. 12). When Plaintiff had a follow-up with that surgeon, he stated there
were no plans for further surgery and Plaintiff would have to see a plastic surgeon about the issue.

Id. At Menard, Dr. Siddiqui indicated he would inquire about the testicle surgery.
In November 2019, Plaintiff again developed stomach pain, as well as frequent defecation
and discomfort (tightening and squeezing) in his right testicle. (Doc. 1, p. 13). Dr. Siddiqui issued
prescriptions and adjusted Plaintiff’s medications in an effort to remedy the stomach and bowel
problems. (Doc. 1, pp. 14-15). Dr. Siddiqui told Plaintiff he would not have any further surgery
to restore his testicle placement because the surgeon indicated it was not needed. (Doc. 1, p. 14).
When Plaintiff informed Dr. Siddiqui of his ongoing discomfort with his right testicle, he ignored

2 Plaintiff’s attached grievances state that the surgery performed at Missouri Baptist Hospital involved
moving his right testicle from his scrotum into a “pouch” created in his right thigh in order to treat the
infection. (Doc. 1, pp. 22-23, 27).
the problem. (Doc. 1, pp. 14-15).
Plaintiff filed grievances over the June 2019 delay in medical care and the denial of further
surgery for his testicle/scrotum. Counselor Meyer and Counselor Carter handled the grievances
which were denied and/or found untimely. (Doc. 1, pp. 12-13).

Warden Lawrence and John Doe C/Os #1 and #2 were aware of Plaintiff’s pain and the
fact he was not receiving adequate medical treatment for his appendicitis but were deliberately
indifferent. (Doc. 1, pp. 15-16). Likewise, medical provider defendants Crain, Dr. Ritz, Dr.
Siddiqui, Zimmer, Locke, and Nurse Jane Doe #1 were aware of his appendicitis, stomach pain,
and scrotum problems but failed to provide him with adequate and timely medical treatment. (Doc.
1, p. 16-17).
Defendant Wexford maintains a “policy and/or widespread practice that requires health
care providers at [Menard] to deny necessary medical care and treatment in an effort to cut costs”
and a practice of understaffing that causes delays in treatment. (Doc. 1, p. 17). Plaintiff seeks
monetary damages and an order requiring the IDOC to complete his scrotum surgery to relocate

his right testicle back to its normal location. Id.
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 John Doe C/O #1 and John Doe C/O #2 for delaying
necessary medical care for Plaintiff’s ruptured appendix in June
2019; the delay led to complications including widespread infection.

Count 2: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Crain,
Ritz, Siddiqui, Zimmer, Locke, and Nurse Jane Doe #1, for delaying
necessary medical care for Plaintiff’s ruptured appendix in June
2019; the delay led to complications including widespread infection.

Count 3: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Crain,
Ritz, Siddiqui, Zimmer, Locke, and Nurse Jane Doe #1, for denying
corrective surgery for Plaintiff’s testicle.

Count 4: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs
claim against Lawrence for delaying necessary medical care for
Plaintiff’s ruptured appendix and denying corrective surgery for
Plaintiff’s testicle.

Count 5: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Siddiqui
for failing to adequately treat Plaintiff’s testicular and abdominal
symptoms in November-December 2019.

Count 6: Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Lawrence, John
Doe C/O #1, John Doe C/O #2, Crain, Ritz, Siddiqui, Zimmer,
Locke, and Nurse Jane Doe #1, for delaying and/or denying Plaintiff
necessary medical care as described in Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

Count 7: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs
claim against Wexford for maintaining a policy/practice that
requires Menard health care providers to deny necessary medical
treatment to cut costs, and for maintaining a policy/practice of
understaffing medical providers at Menard, which caused delays
and denial of care for Plaintiff’s ruptured appendix and follow-up
corrective surgery for Plaintiff’s testicle.

Count 8: Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Meyer and Carter
for denying Plaintiff’s grievances complaining of the denial and/or
delays in his medical care.

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
Count 1
Prison officials violate the Eighth 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. “Deliberate
indifference is proven by demonstrating that a prison official knows of a substantial risk of harm

to an inmate and either acts or fails to act in disregard of that risk. Delaying treatment may
constitute deliberate indifference if such delay exacerbated the injury or unnecessarily prolonged
an inmate’s pain.” Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d 859, 865 (7th Cir. 2012) (internal citations and
quotations omitted).
Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient for the deliberate indifference claim in Count 1 to
proceed against John Doe C/O #1 and John Doe C/O #2.
Count 2
Based on the allegations regarding the response or lack of response to Plaintiff’s requests
for medical attention for his severe abdominal pain and other symptoms June 25-28, 2019, the
deliberate indifference claim against Nurse Jane Doe #1, Locke, and Zimmer in Count 2 will be

allowed to proceed. However, the claims in Count 2 against the remaining defendants will be
dismissed. Plaintiff does not set forth any facts suggesting that Crain, Dr. Ritz, or Dr. Siddiqui
had knowledge of Plaintiff’s abdominal pain and other symptoms between the time the symptoms
first appeared and his transfer to the hospital on June 28, 2019. Likewise, the allegations do not
indicate that Crain, Ritz, or Siddiqui were involved in making decisions that delayed Plaintiff’s
medical care for his ruptured appendix.
Count 3
Plaintiff’s factual allegations are not entirely clear with respect to which Defendants made
the decision to deny follow-up surgery to correct the placement of his testicle. He describes Dr.
Ritz as the “gatekeeper” doctor employed by Wexford and Dr. Siddiqui as the “medical director”
at Menard, also employed by Wexford. (Doc. 1, p. 2). Based on these descriptions and Dr.
Siddiqui’s alleged inquiry regarding the surgery, subsequent statement to Plaintiff that the testicle
surgery was not needed, and knowledge of Plaintiff’s ongoing discomfort related to his testicle,

Count 3 will proceed against Drs. Siddiqui and Ritz.
The Complaint contains no factual allegations suggesting that Crain,3 Zimmer, Locke, or
Nurse Jane Doe #1 played any role in the decision to deny Plaintiff’s follow-up surgery. As such,
the claim in Count 3 is dismissed without prejudice as to Crain, Zimmer, Locke, and Nurse Jane
Doe #1.
Count 4
Defendant Lawrence was the Warden of Menard during the time Plaintiff’s claims arose.
However, the Complaint contains no factual allegations suggesting that Lawrence was aware of
Plaintiff’s symptoms in June 2019. Likewise, there are no allegations suggesting Lawrence’s
knowledge of or involvement in the decision to deny the follow-up surgery to relocate his testicle.

Lawrence cannot be held liable merely because he may have been the supervisor of other
Defendants who allegedly committed constitutional violations. See Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266
F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001) (no supervisory liability in § 1983 actions). Accordingly, the
deliberate indifference claim against Lawrence will be dismissed without prejudice.
Count 5
Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Siddiqui gave him medications, but his stomach/bowel symptoms
were not relieved and became worse. He also alleges that Dr. Siddiqui failed to address his

3 Crain’s signature appears on a January 10, 2020, summary of Plaintiff’s medical record that was prepared
to respond to his grievance, but that document does not indicate that Crain made any decisions regarding
his care. (Doc. 1, pp. 41-42; 44-45).
recurring sensations of tightening, stretching, and squeezing of his right testicle every time he bent
the area. (Doc. 1, pp. 14-15). Ineffective treatment, such as the medication Siddiqui prescribed to
address Plaintiff’s stomach and bowel issues, does not amount to deliberate indifference.
Therefore, Plaintiff states no claim for this portion of Count 5 and it will be dismissed without

prejudice. See Duckworth v. Ahmad, 532 F.3d 675, 680 (7th Cir. 2008).
However, Plaintiff also claims Dr. Siddiqui took no steps to relieve his ongoing testicular
discomfort after the surgery was denied. This alleged failure to act may amount to deliberate
indifference if Dr. Siddiqui knowingly disregarded a condition that involved chronic and
substantial pain. See Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1373 (7th Cir. 1997). On that basis,
Count 5 will proceed against Dr. Siddiqui for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s testicle condition
only.
Count 6
Plaintiff invokes the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as the bases for his claims
regarding the delay and denial of medical treatment. (Doc. 1, pp. 16-17). However, he does not

articulate any grounds for a distinct Fourteenth Amendment claim. Accordingly, Count 6 will be
dismissed without prejudice as duplicative of the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference
claims set forth in Counts 1-5. See Conyers v. Abitz, 416 F.3d 580, 586 (7th Cir. 2005) (dismissing
equal protection and Eighth Amendment claims based on same circumstances as free exercise
claim because free exercise claim “gains nothing by attracting additional constitutional labels”).
Count 7
Plaintiff states a colorable deliberate indifference claim against Wexford (Wexford Health
Sources, Inc.) based on its alleged policies/practices to deny treatment based on cost and to delay
care by understaffing at Menard. See Woodward v. Corr. Med. Serv. of Ill., Inc., 368 F.3d 917,
927 (7th Cir. 2004); Jackson v. Ill. Medi-Car, Inc., 300 F.3d 760, 766 n.6 (7th Cir. 2002) (private
corporation is treated as though it were a municipal entity in a § 1983 action). Plaintiff alleges
that his care was delayed, and that Drs. Ritz and Siddiqui denied his follow-up surgery based on
these official policies espoused by Wexford. Therefore, the claim against Wexford in Count 7 will

proceed.
Count 8
The alleged mishandling of grievances “by persons who otherwise did not cause or
participate in the underlying conduct states no claim.” Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th
Cir. 2011). Thus, Plaintiff’s claims against Meyer and Carter, who handled the grievances Plaintiff
filed to complain about other Defendants’ delay or denial of medical care, do not amount to
constitutional violations. Accordingly, Count 8 will be dismissed with prejudice.
Official Capacity Claims
Plaintiff sues the individual Defendants in both their individual and 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 who remain in the action are dismissed without prejudice.
Injunctive Relief
Because the Complaint includes a request for injunctive relief, Anthony Wills, Warden of
Menard Correctional Center, in his official capacity, will be added as a Defendant. 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).
John/Jane Doe Defendants

Plaintiff is responsible for conducting discovery (informal or formal) aimed at identifying
the Doe Defendants. Anthony Wills, Warden of Menard Correctional Center, in his official
capacity, is the proper defendant for purposes of responding to discovery aimed at identifying the
unknown defendants. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 832 (7th Cir.
2009); Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Guidelines for discovery will be set by the undersigned judge. Once the
names of the unknown defendants are discovered, Plaintiff shall file a motion to substitute the
newly identified defendants in place of the generic designations in the case caption and throughout
the Complaint.
Disposition
Portions of the Complaint survive preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and
shall proceed as follows: COUNT 1 will proceed against John Doe C/O #1 and John Doe C/O
#2; COUNT 2 will proceed against Nurse Jane Doe #1, Locke, and Zimmer; COUNT 3 will

proceed against Ritz and Siddiqui; COUNT 5 will proceed against Siddiqui on Plaintiff’s
testicular symptoms only; and COUNT 7 will proceed against Wexford.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ADD ANTHONY WILLS, WARDEN OF
MENARD CORRECTIONAL CENTER (official capacity only) to the docket for purposes of
Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief and for purposes of responding to discovery aimed at
identifying the Doe Defendants.
The following claims and Defendants are dismissed: COUNTS 4 and 6 are DISMISSED
without prejudice; COUNT 8 is DISMISSED with prejudice; and DEFENDANTS
LAWRENCE, CRAIN, MEYER, and CARTER are DISMISSED without prejudice and the

Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to TERMINATE them from this action.
The Clerk shall prepare for RITZ, SIDDIQUI, ZIMMER, LOCKE, WEXFORD, and
WARDEN OF MENARD CORRECTION 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 each 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.

Service shall not be made on the Doe Defendants until such time as Plaintiff has identified
them by name in a properly filed motion for substitution of party. Plaintiff is ADVISED that it is
his responsibility to provide the Court with the name and service address for these individuals.
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, even though his application to proceed in forma pauperis was 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 parties 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: January 26, 2021
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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10153265. Public record. Not legal advice.