# Black v. Wexford Health Source Inc.

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · July 1, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10153878

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** July 1, 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/10153878

## Opinion text

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

RODNEY EUGENE BLACK,
#B86195,

Plaintiff,
Case No. 20-cv-00678-SPM
v.

WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCE, INC., et
al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MCGLYNN, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on a motion to reconsider (Doc. 19) and three motions for
recruitment of counsel (Docs. 20, 30, 32) filed by pro se Plaintiff Rodney Black. For the following
reasons the motion to reconsider is granted in part and the motions for recruitment of counsel are
denied.
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Black has filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider the Merit Review Order (Doc. 14),
in which the Court dismissed Defendants Jeffreys, Crain, and Wills without prejudice for failure
to state a claim and denied his request for a preliminary injunction. He argues that the denial of his
grievances by these Defendants was enough to establish their involvement for the purpose of
imposing liability. (Id. at p. 2-3) (citing Verser v. Elyea, 113 F. Supp. 2d 1211 (N.D. Ill. July 27,
2000)). He also states that he is still not receiving treatment for his chronic pain, and his condition
will continue to worsen without Court interference.
Under Rule 54(b), the Court may revise any order adjudicating fewer than all the claims at
any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of
all the parties. Motions to reconsider an order under Rule 54(b) are judged largely by the same
standards as motions to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e), “to correct manifest errors of
law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co.,
827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted). “Reconsideration is not an appropriate forum

for rehashing previously rejected arguments or arguing matters that could have been heard during
the pendency of the previous motion.” Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90
F.3d 1264, 1270 (7th Cir. 1996). See also Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 388 F. 3d 247, 249 (7th Cir. 2004).
The Court has not made an error of law or fact warranting reconsideration of the dismissal
of the Grievance Officials. While an official may be subject to liability if he or she “knows about
unconstitutional conduct and facilitates, approves, condones, or ‘turn[s] a blind eye’ to it,” Perez
v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 781 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987, 992-93 (7th
Cir. 1996)), the denial or mishandling of a grievance—standing alone—is not enough to violate
the United States Constitution. See, e.g., Owens v. Evans, 878 F.3d 559, 563 (7th Cir. 2017)
(“Prison officials who simply processed or reviewed inmate grievances lack personal involvement

in the conduct forming the basis of the grievance.”); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir.
2007) (“Ruling against a prisoner on an administrative complaint does not cause or contribute to
the violation.”). Additionally, grievance officials, as non-medical defendants, are entitled to
reasonably rely on the expertise of medical professionals. See Thornton v. Godinez, 720 F. App’x
762, 764 (7th Cir. 2017). See also Figgs v. Dawson, 829 F.3d 895, 903-04 (7th Cir. 2016); Johnson
v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1011 (7th Cir. 2006); Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 656 (7th Cir.
2005); Giles v. Godinez, 914 F.3d 1040, 1049-50 (7th Cir. 2019).
Here, Black alleges:
Defendant Rob Jeffreys Director read all three of my Grievances about my back
and concurred with the Grievance Ofc. Warden Anthony Wills and Angela Crain
from all my medical records and nurse sick call slips, x-rays and MRI’s from Jesse
Brown VA, they concluded that my back and back pain was under control.

(Doc. 1, p. 56). This claim does not raise a plausible inference that the Defendants acted with
deliberately indifference to his chronic back pain. To the contrary, according to Black, Defendants
received his grievances filed in February, March, and April 2020, investigated his claims, and then
deferred to medical staff. Although Black disagrees with their conclusion, he has not asserted that
they disregarded his complaints and were personally involved in violating his constitutional rights.
Furthermore, to assert that Defendants are liable because they are responsible, “in charge,”
or “oversee the system” are also not sufficient allegations to state a claim. Under Section 1983, a
defendant cannot be liable for the conduct of subordinates solely because he or she is in a
supervisory or administrative role. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009).
Accordingly, the Court will not reconsider the dismissal of Defendants Jeffreys, Wills, and
Crain. For the record, the Court accepts Black’s clarification that he received a low bunk and low
gallery permit before he fell down the stairs, not after, as stated by the Court in the Merit Review
Order. (See Doc. 14, p. 2). The Court further clarifies that in the Merit Review Order, it relied on

Black’s responses to his grievances submitted as exhibits to the Complaint (Doc. 1, p. 13, 22), not
sick call slips, in concluding that Black had been seen by medical providers more than fifteen times
since June 22, 2019. (Doc. 14, p. 8).
The Court will reconsider the request for preliminary injunction. Black states that he has
completed physical therapy and taken three months of muscle relaxers, and he is still in constant
pain and not being given pain medication. (Doc. 19, p. 7). He claims it is difficult for him to sit,
walk, and lie down, and his condition is worsening. Defendants are directed to file a written
response to the motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 13) and the new allegations made in the
motion to reconsider (Doc. 19, p. 7-10) on or before July 15, 2021. A determination on whether a

hearing on the motion is necessary will be made after reviewing the response. The Court will add
Anthony Wills, the Warden of Menard Correctional Center, as a defendant, in his official capacity
only, for purpose of implementing any preliminary injunctive relief that may be ordered.
MOTIONS FOR RECRUITMENT OF COUNSEL
Black has filed three motions for recruitment of counsel (Doc. 20, 30, 32), which are

denied. 1 Black states that he has written several attorneys in an effort to obtain counsel and has
filed declination letters from five different firms. (Doc. 21, 25, 31). Accordingly, he appears to
have made reasonable efforts to retain counsel on his own before seeking the assistance of the
Court. With respect to his ability to pursue this action pro se, Black indicates that he needs the
assistance of counsel because his case is highly technical and involves complex medical issues and
discovery. He further asserts that he previously had the help of a fellow inmate in initiating this
action, but no longer has access to the law library or the assistance of other inmates due to COVID-
19 restrictions. The Court finds that Black is capable of proceeding pro se. He has some high
school education and can read, write, and effectively communicate with the Court. Despite limited
access to the law library and interaction with other inmates, he continues to file coherent motions,

which include citations to case law, and several exhibits. As this case is in the early stages, and
discovery on the merits has not yet commenced, Black is competent to litigate this matter without
representation at this time.
MOTION FOR STATUS HEARING
In light of this Order, the request for a status hearing is denied as moot. (Doc. 35).
DISPOSITION
For the reasons state above, the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 19) is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ADD Anthony Wills, the

1 In evaluating the Motions for Recruitment of Counsel, the Court applies the factors discussed in Pruitt v. Mote, 503
F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007) and related authority.
Warden of Menard Correctional Center, as a defendant in his official capacity only for the purpose
of implementing any preliminary injunctive relief that may be ordered. The Clerk shall serve
Anthony Wills with the Complaint (Doc. 1), the Merit Review Order (Doc. 14), the Motion for
TRO/Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 13), the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 19), and this Order

in the manner provided the Merit Review Order. (Doc. 14). Defendants are DIRECTED to file a
response to the motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 13) and the allegations in the motion for
reconsideration (Doc. 19, p. 7-10) by July 15, 2021.
The Motions for Recruitment of Counsel are DENIED. (Doc. 20, 30, 32). The Motion for
Status Hearing (Doc. 35) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 1, 2021

s/Stephen P. McGlynn
STEPHEN P. MCGLYNN
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10153878. Public record. Not legal advice.