# Krueger v. David

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · October 5, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10156928

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** October 5, 2023
- **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/10156928

## Opinion text

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

GEORGE A. KRUEGER, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 23-cv-3023-NJR

DR. ALFONSO DAVID, DENISE
ARCHIONE, KASANDRA FREEMAN,
and WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES,
INC.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff George A. Krueger, Jr., an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”) who is currently incarcerated at Shawnee Correctional Center (“Shawnee”),
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On September 6, 2023, Krueger filed his Complaint (Doc. 1) alleging deliberate
indifference in the treatment of his shoulder. On October 3, 2023, Krueger filed a
“Supplemental Complaint” (Doc. 12). The Court does not usually accept “supplemental
complaints” as a pleading must be able to stand on its own without reference to any other
pleading. See Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., 354 F.3d 632, 638 n. 1 (7th Cir. 2004)
(“amended complaint supersedes an original complaint and renders the original
complaint void”). But because Krueger’s “Supplemental Complaint” includes both his
original and new allegations, the Court will treat the filing as an Amended Complaint.
In the Amended Complaint (Doc. 12), Krueger alleges Defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical condition 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. 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 Amended Complaint
In his Amended Complaint, Krueger makes the following allegations: In May
2021, while incarcerated at Centralia Correctional Center, Krueger began experiencing
shoulder pain, making it difficult to lift his arms up (Doc. 12, p. 6). He received x-rays on

June 19, 2021, but was subsequently transferred to Shawnee Correctional Center. Upon
arrival at Shawnee, Dr. Alfonso David canceled Krueger’s prescribed medications and
gave him “weaker” medications including Acetaminophen and Diclofenac, which did
not help his pain. In response to Krueger confronting Dr. David about his pain, Dr. David
told Krueger that there was nothing that could be done for his shoulders, his condition

was merely the result of old age, and Krueger needed to exercise and lose weight (Id. at
p. 7). Krueger argued with Dr. David. Dr. David eventually filled his prescriptions but
informed Krueger that he would not see him again (Id.).
Krueger alleges that he did take Dr. David’s advice and started exercising. He also
lost 30 pounds, but his shoulder pain worsened (Id.). He received several x-rays, but his

requests for an MRI were denied (Id.). Krueger believes Dr. David refused his request for
an MRI to save money and receive a bonus from Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (Id. at p. 8).
Dr. David also canceled all follow-ups with Krueger.
On December 2, 2022, Krueger learned that Nurse Practitioner (“NP”) Alexandria
Brown had submitted him for a medical consultation two months earlier, in October 2022
(Id. at p. 8). The Shawnee medical records department informed Krueger that he was on

a wait list for an orthopedic consultation (Id. at p. 9). Krueger later received a
memorandum from Dr. David indicating that he was submitting Krueger for an
orthopedic consult due to x-rays showing degenerative changes (Id.). Krueger believes
Dr. David tried to cover his deliberate indifference and lied because the x-rays never
showed his condition, a torn rotator cuff.

On February 28, 2023, Krueger received an MRI of his right shoulder and spoke
with an orthopedic surgeon. The surgeon informed Krueger that he had several torn
ligaments. He also informed Krueger that his injury would be difficult to repair due to
the passage of time from his initial injury (Id. at pp. 9-10). Upon return from the
orthopedic consult, Krueger was scheduled for a follow-up with Dr. David, but Dr. David

canceled the appointment and never rescheduled it (Id. at p. 10). On May 26, 2023,
Krueger was approved for an orthopedic consultation for his right knee but, as of August
20, 2023, the appointment had not been scheduled (Id.).
On June 11, 2023, Krueger saw a nurse for pain medication and a bottom bunk
permit (Id. at pp. 10-11). He asked the nurse about the status of his rotator cuff surgery.

The nurse referenced a note from the medical records department asking NP Brown to
resubmit the request because they could not read her handwriting (Id. at p. 11). He later
learned from NP Brown that she had previously typed out the order along with the
written request and there should not have been an issue with the medical records
department (Id.).
On July 3, 2023, while exercising, Krueger’s right shoulder “went out” and he felt

it dislocate and a ripping in the tendons (Id. at p. 12). While in the healthcare unit, Krueger
learned that Denise Archione was in charge of scheduling his surgery but had failed to
set up the appointment. Finally, a week later, he received notice that his surgery was
scheduled, which Krueger contends was a lie because the medical records indicated that
Archione did not call the orthopedic surgeon until July 14, 2023, and the surgeon was out

of the office until July 17, 2023 (Id. at pp. 12-13). Krueger alleges that Archione’s failure to
timely schedule his surgery left him in pain for months (Id. at p. 13).
On August 7, 2023, Krueger had his rotator cuff surgery (Id. at p. 13). The surgeon
indicated that he might not be able to repair all of the ligaments due to the passage of
time (Id.). But the surgeon was ultimately able to repair his rotator cuff, and Krueger was

transferred back to Shawnee for observation (Id. at p. 15). On August 8, 2023, he requested
instructions on how to care for his shoulder during the healing process, but Dr. David
ignored his requests and stated that he would talk to him at a follow-up appointment in
a couple of days (Id. at pp. 15-16). Krueger was sent back to his housing unit. Dr. David
subsequently canceled his call passes for a follow-up on two occasions (Id. at p. 16).

Krueger later reviewed his medical records and learned that Nurse Kasandra
Freeman placed an entry in the records stating Krueger had been seen by Dr. David on
August 8, 2023, right after surgery (Id. at p. 20). Krueger contends these entries were false
because Dr. David refused to speak with him on that date. On August 18, 2023, Krueger
saw Nurse Joey who informed him that Dr. David was “really messed up” and “not
right” (Id. at pp. 17-18). Nurse Joey submitted a request for Krueger to see the nurse

practitioner, but he never received an appointment (Id.). Krueger continued to experience
extreme pain from his surgery; he never received any follow-up instructions for his
surgical repair (Id. at p. 19).
On August 22, 2023, Krueger went to the healthcare unit on a medical request slip
to inquire about a surgical follow-up (Id. at p. 20). Nurse Freeman canceled the request,

stating that Dr. David had already seen Krueger (Id.). Krueger contends her false
statements delayed his access to medical care (Id.). On August 30, 2023, Krueger saw
NP Sharp and was informed that he was scheduled for a follow-up with his surgeon on
August 31, 2023 (Id. at p. 19). Sharp also submitted a request for an MRI of Krueger’s left
shoulder (Id.).

Preliminary Dismissals

Although Krueger lists Wexford Health Sources, Inc. in the caption of his
Amended Complaint, he fails to include any allegations against Wexford in his statement
of claim. He only alleges that he believes Dr. David refused his request for an MRI
because he would receive a bonus from Wexford for saving money (Doc. 12, p. 8). But
there are no allegations to suggest that Wexford had a policy or practice of recommending

cheaper diagnostics. 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.”).
Wexford can only be liable if it had an unconstitutional policy or custom, and Krueger
fails to point to such a policy. Krueger only alleges unconstitutional actions by Dr. David
but fails to allege that his actions were taken pursuant to a Wexford policy or practice.

Thus, Wexford Health Sources, Inc. is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Discussion

Based on the allegations in the Amended Complaint, Krueger states the following
claim:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Dr. Alfonso David, Nurse Kassandra Freeman, and Denise
Archione for delaying treatment for Krueger’s injured
shoulders and knee.

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.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
plausible on its face”).
At this stage, Krueger states a viable deliberate indifference claim against Dr.
David, Nurse Freeman, and Denise Archione. He alleges that the actions of each

defendant delayed surgery and other care for his injured shoulders and knee. He alleges
that Dr. David refused to see him on numerous occasions, refused to provide him with
adequate pain medications, and refused to refer him for an MRI or surgical consult. He
alleges that Nurse Freeman participated in that refusal by misstating in the medical
records that he had been seen by Dr. David and denying further follow-up appointments.
Finally, he alleges that Denise Archione failed to timely schedule his rotator cuff surgery,

delaying his surgical repair. That is enough at this stage to state a viable Eighth
Amendment claim.
Preliminary Injunction Motion
In addition to his Amended Complaint (Doc. 12), Krueger filed a motion for
preliminary injunction (Doc. 11). He seeks an MRI for his left shoulder, as well as

additional care and treatment for his right shoulder (Doc. 11, pp. 3-4). A preliminary
injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy” for which there must be a “clear
showing” that a plaintiff is entitled to relief. Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997)
(quoting 11A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R Miller, & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice
and Procedure §2948 (5th ed. 1995)). The purpose of such an injunction is “to minimize

the hardship to the parties pending the ultimate resolution of the lawsuit.” Faheem-El v.
Klincar, 841 F.2d 712, 717 (7th Cir. 1988). A plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating: (1) a
reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, (2) no adequate remedy at law, and
(3) irreparable harm absent the injunction. Planned Parenthood v. Commissioner of Indiana
State Dep’t Health, 699 F.3d 962, 972 (7th Cir. 2012).

Simply put, Krueger fails to adequately demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of
success on the merits because he fails to provide any information about his current care.
His motion focuses only on Defendants’ delays in scheduling his original surgery and in
obtaining an MRI for his left shoulder. But he clearly alleges in his Amended Complaint
that he received surgery on his right shoulder. Further, his Amended Complaint indicates
that he was scheduled for a follow-up with the surgeon on August 31, 2023, and that he

received a referral for an MRI of his left shoulder (Doc. 12, p. 19). There is no indication
in his motion as to the current state of his care. Nor does he indicate whether he attended
the scheduled follow-up appointment. Because Krueger focuses only on his past care,
there is nothing in the record to suggest that Defendants are currently being deliberately
indifferent to his shoulder pain. Thus, the Court DENIES Krueger’s motion for

preliminary injunction at this time. Krueger is free to submit another motion with
information regarding the current state of his medical care.
Motion for Counsel
As to Krueger’s motion for counsel (Doc. 3), Krueger indicates that he has sought
counsel on his own and that he needs counsel due to a learning disability and mental

illness. Given the early stage of the litigation process, 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.”). Defendants have yet to be served, and there
is nothing pending that would require a response from Krueger. Further, based on
Krueger’s filings, the Court finds him capable of submitting a motion for preliminary

injunction if he chooses to continue to seek injunctive relief. Thus, his motion for counsel
is DENIED.
Disposition
For the reasons stated above, Count 1 shall proceed against Dr. David, Nurse
Freeman, and Denise Archione. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., is DISMISSED without
prejudice for Krueger’s failure to state a claim. Krueger’s motion for preliminary

injunction (Doc. 11) and motion for counsel (Doc. 3) are DENIED without prejudice.
The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendants Dr. Alfonso David, Nurse
Kasandra Freeman, and Denise Archione: (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 Amended Complaint, and this

Memorandum and Order to the defendants’ place of employment as identified by
Krueger. 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 Krueger,
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.
§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 Krueger, 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, Krueger 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: October 5, 2023 Tl

NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge

10

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. c

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10156928. Public record. Not legal advice.