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.”
How later courts described this case
- 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.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ALONZO PRATT, #R56815, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 3:21-cv-01262-SMY
)
LT. BEBOP, )
WEXFORD HEALTH SERVICES, INC., )
LANCE T. KORANDO, )
JANE DOE (Nurse), )
DR. SIDDIQUI, )
JOHN DOE 1 (C/O), )
JOHN DOE 2 (C/O), )
JOHN DOE 3 (C/O), )
CARBONDALE MEMORIAL )
HOSPITAL, )
ROLAND J. BARR, )
SSM HEALTH SAINT LOUIS )
UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, )
CHRISTOPHER LEE, and )
KETAN SHARMA, )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Plaintiff Alonzo Pratt, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections, filed the instant
lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deprivations of his constitutional rights while
incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center. This case is now before the Court for preliminary
review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 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 the Complaint (Doc. 11): Plaintiff asked Lt.
Bebop to move him on more than one occasion because his “cellie was fighting [him].” (Doc. 11,
p. 24). Bebop advised Plaintiff he could refuse housing and go to segregation. Plaintiff also asked
gallery officer Korando to move him more than once. Korando witnessed Plaintiff’s cellmate
strike him in the eye and knock him over a box on October 25, 2019. However, Korando wrote a
disciplinary report stating he witnessed Plaintiff fall over a box and that he smelled of intoxicants
to cover up for Plaintiff’s cellmate and his failure to move Plaintiff as requested.
Jane Doe (a nurse) approved Plaintiff for segregation placement and gave him an ice pack
for his eye. He told her his “shoulder felt like it was broke” and asked to see a doctor, but she took
no further action. (Id., p. 25). While in segregation, he asked John Does 1-3 (all Correctional
Officers) to get him medical help, but they took no action.
Dr. Siddiqui failed to call Plaintiff to sick call despite a letter Plaintiff wrote requesting to
be seen. Plaintiff filed an emergency grievance after being in pain for three weeks; he was finally
called to health care for evaluation and x-rays. X-rays revealed a fracture of the right humeral
head with dislocation of the right shoulder. Plaintiff was sent to Carbondale Memorial Hospital
where Dr. Roland Barr, an orthopedic surgeon, performed emergency surgery on his shoulder on
November 12, 2019. (Id. pp. 47-48). His shoulder dislocated again three days later. Plaintiff had
no functional use of his right arm and suffered from constant pain.
Plaintiff had a second surgery on his right shoulder on May 22, 2020 performed by Dr.
Christopher Lee, another orthopedic surgeon.1 (Id., pp. 50-53.) He had a postoperative visit with
Dr. Lee on June 9, 2020. At that time, Dr. Lee’s plan of care was a follow-up visit in four weeks,
physical and occupational therapy, and an EMG/NCS to the right upper extremity within the next
1 The medical records show Dr. Christopher Kim performed this surgery. There is no mention of a Dr. Christopher
Lee in any of the medical records attached to the Complaint. However, Dr. Lee, and not Dr. Kim, is named as a
defendant and Plaintiff attributes the actions of Dr. Kim reflected in the medical records to a Dr. Lee.
two to three weeks. Dr. Lee sent a letter to Dr. Siddiqui explaining the plan. (Id., pp. 42-46).
However, Dr. Siddiqui did not send Plaintiff out for the follow-up or physical and occupational
therapy. Additionally, Dr. Siddiqui failed to send him to have the hardware removed after six
months.
Plaintiff required a third surgery on March 16, 2021 that was performed by Dr. Ketan
Sharma, also an orthopedic surgeon. Following the surgery, the nerves in Plaintiff’s hand no
longer work, his wrist and forearm no longer work, he cannot use his hand, and he is in constant
pain. His hand is worse than before Dr. Sharma’s surgery.
Wexford Health Services, Carbondale Memorial Hospital, and SSM Health Saint Louis
University Hospital failed to ensure the doctors and nurses employed by them did not violate the
Eight Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments.
Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court designates the following claims in this
pro se action:2
Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against Bebop and Korando for failing to
protect Plaintiff from an assault by his cellmate that occurred on
October 25, 2019.
Count 2: Eighth Amendment claim against Jane Doe, John Does 1-3, Dr.
Siddiqui, and Wexford Health Services, Inc. for exhibiting
deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs as it
related to injuries he suffered on October 25, 2019 that went
untreated until November 12, 2019.
Count 3: Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Siddiqui and Wexford Health
Services, Inc. for exhibiting deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s
serious medical needs regarding complications from the shoulder
injury/shoulder surgery and/or denying postoperative care
recommended by the surgeon after the surgery on November 12,
2019.
2Any claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed in this Order is 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.”).
Count 4: Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Siddiqui and Wexford Health
Services, Inc. for exhibiting deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s
serious medical needs by denying postoperative care recommended
by the surgeon after the surgery on May 22, 2020.
Count 5: Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Barr and Carbondale
Memorial Hospital for exhibiting deliberate indifference to
Plaintiff’s serious medical needs as it related to the surgery on
November 12, 2019 for an injured right shoulder.
Count 6: Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Lee for exhibiting deliberate
indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs as it related to the
surgery on May 22, 2020 for complications from an injured right
shoulder.
Count 7: Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Sharma and SSM Health Saint
Louis University Hospital for exhibiting deliberate indifference to
Plaintiff’s serious medical needs as it related to the surgery on
March 16, 2021 for complications from an injured right shoulder.
Preliminary Dismissals
Plaintiff names as Defendants Wexford Health Services, Inc., Carbondale Memorial
Hospital, and SSM Health Saint Louis University Hospital, alleging they failed to ensure the
doctors and nurses treating him did not violate the Eighth Amendment. Because the doctrine of
respondeat superior does not apply to § 1983 actions, a private corporation is not vicariously liable
for its employees’ alleged deliberate indifference to an individual’s serious medical needs. See
Jackson v. Illinois Medi-Car, Inc., 300 F.3d 760, 766 (7th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, Wexford
Health Services, Inc., Carbondale Memorial Hospital, and SSM Health Saint Louis University
Hospital will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Discussion
Count 1
Prison officials have a constitutional duty to “take reasonable measures to guarantee the
safety” of prisoners and protect them “from violence at the hands of other prisoners.” Brown v.
Budz, 398 F.3d 904, 909 (7th Cir. 2005). To state an Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim,
a prisoner must allege that he is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious
harm and the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to that risk. Id. Awareness of a specific,
impending, and substantial threat to the plaintiff's safety is necessary to support a failure to protect
claim. Pope v. Shafer, 86 F.3d 90,92 (7th Cir. 1996). The allegations in the Complaint are
sufficient to proceed on a failure to protect claim in Count 1 against Defendants Bebop and
Korando.
Counts 2 - 7
Prison officials and medical staff violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on 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 a claim, a prisoner must allege
facts suggesting that (1) he suffered from an objectively serious medical condition, and (2) the
defendant acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Id. The allegations in the
Complaint are sufficient to proceed on the claim in Count 2 against Defendants Jane Doe, John
Does 1-3, and Dr. Siddiqui and the claims in Counts 3 and 4 against Dr. Siddiqui.
The allegations that Dr. Barr, Dr. Lee, and Dr. Sharma performed surgeries with poor
outcomes fail to state a claim because deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment does
not encompass medical negligence. See Sherrod v. Lingle, 223 F.3d 605, 611 (7th Cir. 2000).
Because there are no allegations that suggest deliberate indifference, the claims in Counts 5-7 and
Dr. Barr, Dr. Lee, and Dr. Sharma will be dismissed.
Identification of Doe Defendants
The Warden of Menard Correctional Center, in his/her official capacity, will be added to
the docket to respond to discovery for the purpose of identifying the Doe Defendants. See
Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 832 (7th Cir. 2009). Guidelines for
discovery will be set by the undersigned. Once the names of the Doe Defendants are discovered,
Plaintiff shall file a motion to substitute the newly identified individuals for the Doe Defendants.
Official Capacity Claims
Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants in their individual and official capacities.
Because he seeks monetary damages, he must bring his claims against the Defendants in their
individual capacities only. Brown v. Budz, 904 F.3d 904, 918 (7th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the
official capacity claims are dismissed without prejudice with the exception of the Menard Warden.
Disposition
Following § 1915A review, the following claims WILL PROCEED: Count 1 against
Bebop and Korando in their individual capacities; Count 2 against Jane Doe, John Does 1-3, and
Dr. Siddiqui in their individual capacities; and Counts 3 and 4 against Dr. Siddiqui in his individual
capacity. The following entities, individuals, and claims are DISMISSED without prejudice:
Wexford Health Services, Inc., Carbondale Memorial Hospital, SSM Health Saint Louis
University Hospital, Dr. Barr, Dr. Lee, Dr. Sharma, and Counts 5-7.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to TERMINATE as parties Wexford Health Services,
Inc., Carbondale Memorial Hospital, SSM Health Saint Louis University Hospital, Dr. Barr, Dr.
Lee, and Dr. Sharma and ADD to the docket the Warden of Menard Correctional Center (official
capacity only) to respond to discovery for the purpose of identifying the Doe Defendants.
The Clerk of Court shall PREPARE for Bebop, Korando, and Dr. Siddiqui (individual
capacities), 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 Defendants’ 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. As the Warden of Menard Correctional Center is in the case solely for discovery
purposes, the Warden need not respond to the Complaint. The Warden only needs to enter an
appearance and will receive further instruction on discovery at a later date.
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.
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).
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: April 19, 2023
s/ Staci M. Yandle_____
STACI M. YANDLE
U.S. District Judge
Notice to Plaintiff
The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the Defendants of your lawsuit and serve
the Defendants 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 or other responsive pleading, but it is
entirely possible that it will take 90 days or more. When Defendants have filed their Answer(s),
the Court will enter a Scheduling and Discovery 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 should not submit any evidence to the Court
at this time, unless specifically directed to do so.