“Such a private corporation cannot be held liable under [Section] 1983 unless the constitutional violation was caused by an unconstitutional policy or custom of the corporation itself.”
How later courts described this case
- “Such a private corporation cannot be held liable under [Section] 1983 unless the constitutional violation was caused by an unconstitutional policy or custom of the corporation itself.”
- 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 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
ADAM BLAZER,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 23-cv-1343-RJD
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.,
PHIL MARTIN, RACHEL DODD, BILL
LOY, and JOSH LANE,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Adam Blazer, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”) who is currently incarcerated at Robinson Correctional Center, brings this
action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Blazer’s
Complaint (Doc. 1) was dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim and he
was granted leave to file an Amended Complaint (Doc. 15). On July 25, 2023, Blazer filed
his Amended Complaint alleging that Defendants failed to provide him dental care in
violation of the Eighth Amendment.
This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Amended
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.1 Under Section 1915A, the Court is required to
1 The Court has jurisdiction to resolve Plaintiff’s motions and to screen his Complaint pursuant
to 28 USC § 1915A in light of his consent to the full jurisdiction of a magistrate judge and the
Illinois Department of Corrections’ and Wexford Health Sources, Inc.’s limited consent to the
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 Amended Complaint
In his Amended Complaint, Blazer makes the following allegations: In November
2022 Blazer began experiencing issues with his teeth, including abscesses and infections
(Doc. 16, p. 3). The condition of his teeth began deteriorating and he experienced extreme
pain and the inability to eat and sleep. Blazer submitted numerous sick call requests from
November 2022 through February 2023 (Id. at p. 4). He spoke to healthcare unit
administrator Phil Martin on numerous occasions and Martin told him that the prison
did not have a regular dentist and Blazer would have to “man up and deal with it” (Id.).
Blazer alleges that sick call wait times under Martin’s administration of the healthcare
unit have gone from 20 to 30 days, and in Blazer’s case it took even longer to be seen (Id.).
He also alleges that Josh Lane, an administrator in charge of scheduling care at Robinson,
failed to schedule consultations in a timely manner (Id. at p. 5). Lane purposefully
delayed scheduling dental care even though Blazer sought care in November 2022 (Id.).
Blazer also alleges that he spoke with warden Rachel Dodd on multiple occasions
about his pain and inability to receive dental care (Id. at p. 4). Although Dodd informed
exercise of magistrate judge jurisdiction as set forth in the Memorandums of Understanding
between the Illinois Department of Corrections, Wexford, and this Court.
Blazer that she would look into the issue, she never provided him any update on his
request and he did not receive timely dental care (Id.). Dodd retired in April 2023 and Bill
Loy took over as acting warden (Id. at p. 5). Blazer also informed Loy both in writing and
in person about his dental problems. He spoke with Loy on the yard in May 2023 and
Loy responded: “Well I’m not a dentist. What do you expect me to do about it?” (Id.).
Blazer alleges that Loy failed to take any steps to ensure Blazer received timely dental
care.
Despite submitting dental sick call requests, Blazer did not receive treatment until
June 2023 when two of the four infected teeth were pulled. Blazer still has two teeth which
need extracting and he alleges that he is in constant pain (Id. at p. 5). Blazer alleges that
his treatment was delayed due to Wexford Health Sources, Inc.’s policy of purposefully
delaying dental care at Robinson (Id. at p. 3).
Discussion
Based on the allegations in the Amended Complaint, the Court finds it convenient
to divide the pro se action into the following counts:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Phil Martin, Rachel Dodd, Bill Loy, and Josh Lane for
delaying dental care for Blazer’s infected teeth.
Count 2: Eighth Amendment claim against Wexford Health Sources,
Inc., for implementing a policy of delaying and denying
dental care at Robinson.
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 Amended Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be
considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under the Twombly
pleading standard.2
At this stage, Blazer states a viable claim for deliberate indifference to his need for
dental care against Phil Martin, Rachel Dodd, Bill Loy, and Josh Lane. Brown v.
Osmundson, 38 F.4th 545, 550 (7th Cir. 2022) (a plaintiff must demonstrate that a defendant
denied medical care altogether, delayed care, continued with ineffective treatment, or
departed substantially from accepted professional judgment). Blazer also adequately
states a claim against Wexford for its policy of delaying treatment for dental conditions.
Shields v. Ill. Dep't of Corr., 746 F.3d 782, 789 (7th Cir. 2014) (“Such a private corporation
cannot be held liable under [Section] 1983 unless the constitutional violation was caused
by an unconstitutional policy or custom of the corporation itself.”).
Disposition
For the reasons stated above, Count 1 shall proceed against Phil Martin, Rachel
Dodd, Bill Loy, and Josh Lane. Count 2 shall proceed against Wexford Health Sources,
Inc..
The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendants Phil Martin, Rachel Dodd, Bill
Loy, Josh Lane, 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).
2 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
plausible on its face”).
The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail these forms, a copy of the Amended Complaint, and this
Memorandum and Order to the defendants’ place of employment as identified by Blazer.
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 Blazer, 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 Amended 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 Blazer, 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(f)(2)(A).
Finally, Blazer 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: 9/5/2023
/s/ Reona J. Daly
REONA J. DALY
U.S. Magistrate 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 Amended Complaint. After service has
been achieved, the defendants will enter their appearance and file an Answer to your
Amended 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.