# Brown v. Tilden

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · December 9, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10155855

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** December 9, 2022
- **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/10155855

## Opinion text

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

MARCUS BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 22-cv-2372-NJR
)
)
DR. RITZ, DR. SIDDIQUI, NURSE )
PRACTITIONER MOLDENHAUER, )
and WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, )
INC., )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff Marcus Brown, who at the time he filed his Complaint was an inmate of
the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), brings this action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Complaint was originally filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois (See Doc. 7) because he filed
claims against employees at both Pontiac and Menard Correctional Centers. On October
11, 2022, District Judge James Shadid dismissed the claims against Pontiac officials and
transferred the claims against Menard officials to this district court (Id.). In the Complaint,
Brown alleges defendants at Menard were deliberately indifferent to his shoulder injury
in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, the Court is required to screen
prisoner complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any
portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law is
immune from such relief must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
The Complaint
In his Complaint, Brown makes the following allegations: While incarcerated at
Pontiac, Brown injured his shoulder lifting weights (Doc. 1, p. 9). Despite complaining
about continued pain in his shoulder, staff at Pontiac did not believe he had injured his

shoulder and failed to provide him with care (Id. at pp. 9-10).
On May 23, 2018, Brown transferred to Menard. On June 1, 2018, he saw Nurse
Practitioner Moldenhauer (Id. at p. 14). She referred him to Dr. Siddiqui for his pain. On
June 6, 2018, he saw Dr. Siddiqui and requested an MRI and stronger pain medications.
Dr. Siddiqui ordered an x-ray, ultrasound, and physical therapy, but refused to order any

stronger pain medications (Id.). Although records indicate that Brown refused the
ultrasound, Brown maintains that he never refused any tests (Id.). He received an x-ray
of his shoulder. On June 25, 2018, he again saw Moldenhauer. Although records indicate
that he refused pain medications, Brown disputes the medical records and also alleges
that the continued treatment of the same medications that did not relieve his symptoms

amounted to no treatment (Id. at p. 15). Brown continued to request treatment from Dr.
Siddiqui and Moldenhauer for years but received no further care or stronger pain
medications than Naproxen, Tylenol, and Ibuprofen (Id. at pp. 15-16).
The medical records indicate that he was diagnosed in 2021 with a rotator cuff tear
(Doc. 1, pp. 45, 49, 57-58). Despite being diagnosed with a complete torn rotator cuff,

Brown alleges that Moldenhauer and Siddiqui continued to refuse him additional care,
including additional pain medication and physical therapy (Id. at pp. 16-17). He believes
their decision to not provide him care is part of a continued practice by Wexford to “short
cut” treatment in order to save costs (Id. at p. 18). He also alleges that Dr. Ritz, Wexford’s
utilization management physician, denied additional care for Brown’s injuries (Id. at
p. 12).

Discussion

Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court designates the following
counts:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Dr. Ritz, Dr. Siddiqui, and Moldenhauer for denying and
delaying Brown medical care for his torn rotator cuff.

Count 2: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Wexford Health Sources, Inc. for establishing cost cutting
policies which denied Brown care for his torn rotator cuff.

The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders,
unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. 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.1

1 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 to relief that is
At this stage, Brown states valid claims in Counts 1 and 2. The Court notes that
Brown alleges Dr. Ritz denied him care prior to his transfer to Menard. As noted by

District Judge Shadid, it is unclear from the allegations whether Dr. Ritz continued to
participate in Brown’s care after his transfer to Menard. The attached medical records
indicate that Dr. Ritz denied an outside referral on May 10, 2018 (Doc. 1, pp. 28, 31). But
at this stage, the Court cannot say that the claims against Dr. Ritz are clearly barred by
the statute of limitations. Thus, the Court cannot dismiss the claims against Dr. Ritz at
this time (See Doc. 7, pp. 4-5).

Pending Motions
As to Brown’s motion for counsel, he indicates that he has a serious mental illness
and had help writing his Complaint (Doc. 5). Given the early stage of the litigation,
however, it is difficult to accurately evaluate the need for the assistance of counsel. See
Kadamovas v. Stevens, 706 F.3d 843, 845 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[U]ntil the defendants respond to

the complaint, the plaintiff’s need for assistance of counsel ... cannot be gauged.”).2
Further, counsel is not needed at this time because Defendants have not yet been served
and a scheduling order has not been entered. Thus, his motion is DENIED without
prejudice.

plausible on its face”). This includes any claim of retaliation. Although Brown alleges that
Moldenhauer refused to provide him with proper care as an act of retaliation he fails to point to
any speech or activity he participated in which motivated Moldenhauer to retaliate against him.
Manuel v. Nalley, 966 F.3d 678, 680 (7th Cir. 2020).
2 In evaluating the motion for counsel, the Court applies the factors discussed in Pruitt v. Mote,
503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007), and related authority.
Disposition
For the reasons stated above, Count 1 shall proceed against Dr. Ritz, Dr. Siddiqui,
and Moldenhauer. Count 2 shall proceed against Wexford Health Sources, Inc.

The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendants Dr. Ritz, Dr. Siddiqui,
Moldenhauer, and Wexford Health Sources, Inc.: (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 the defendants’ place of employment as identified by Brown.

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 that defendant, and the Court will require that defendant
to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

If a defendant can no longer be found at the work address provided by Brown, the
employer shall furnish the Clerk with the defendant’s current work address, or, if not
known, 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. Address information 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. Section 1997e(g).
Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 244, Defendants need only respond to the issues
stated in this Merit Review Order.
If judgment is rendered against Brown, and the judgment includes the payment of
costs under Section 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(£)(2)(A).
Finally, Brown is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the
Clerk of Court and each 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 seven 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).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 9, 2022
wtp AM osnitg
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge

Notice to Plaintiff
The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the appropriate defendants of
your lawsuit and serve them with a copy of your complaint. After service has been
achieved, the defendants will enter their 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 all
the defendants have filed 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 the 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/10155855. Public record. Not legal advice.