Brown v. Wexford Health Sources Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ALLEN BROWN, )

Y48939, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 23-cv-4020-DWD

)

WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., )

UNKNOWN MANAGEMENT STAFF, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DUGAN, District Judge:

Plaintiff Allen Brown, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC)

currently detained at Menard1 Correctional Center (Menard), brings this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights

while at Shawnee Correctional Center (Shawnee). Plaintiff alleges that he has been

experiencing severe jaw pain since late-August of 2023, but he has not yet received any

dental care due to inadequate staffing. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary

compensation. (Doc. 1 at 8).

Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is now before the Court for preliminary review

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, the Court is required to screen

1 Plaintiff was informed when he filed his case that he must notify the Court if his address changes within

14 days. (Doc. 4). Upon non-receipt of Plaintiff’s consent to a magistrate judge on two occasions, and upon

receipt of his initial filing fee, the Court searched for Plaintiff in the IDOC Inmate Locator tool online and

learned that he had been moved from Shawnee to Menard. The Court will DIRECT the Clerk of Court to

UPDATE Plaintiff’s address and to mail this order to Menard, but if Plaintiff fails in the future to update

his own address within 14 days of moving, then his case may be dismissed for failure to follow Court

orders.

prisoner complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b).

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). At this juncture,

the factual allegations of the pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. Rodriguez v.

Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).

THE COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges that on August 23, 2023, he saw a member of the dental staff for

ongoing pain in his jaw. Plaintiff was placed on the extraction list but did not get an

extraction on that day. (Doc. 1 at 6). He alleges that he grieved his situation and was

informed that his extraction was delayed by the lack of a full-time dentist at Shawnee.

He attached this grievance documentation, wherein the grievance officer indicated that

the facility did not have a full-time dentist and did not have control over when the

rotating dentist visited the facility. (Doc. 1 at 10). Plaintiff was advised to report to sick

call if he felt he had a medical emergency. (Id.). Plaintiff also alleges that since August

23, he has been provided with nothing more than Tylenol to manage his pain, and the

Tylenol does not help. (Doc. 1 at 6). Plaintiff alleges that he is having trouble eating and

he has sent multiple request slips to no avail. He alleges that Wexford has a policy of

understaffing, which has delayed his needed care by at least four months.

Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court will designate the following

claim:

Count 1: Monell claim against Wexford Health Sources, Inc. for

failing to provide adequate staffing at Shawnee to meet

Plaintiff’s dental needs.

The parties and the Court will use this designation in all future pleadings and orders

unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. Any claim that is mentioned

in the Complaint but not addressed in this Order is considered dismissed without

prejudice as inadequately pled under Twombly. See Bell Atl. 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”).

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff named Wexford Health Services for their policy to understaff the dental

unit at Shawnee. Wexford is a private corporation that cannot be held liable under § 1983

unless the constitutional violation was caused by an unconstitutional policy or custom of

the corporation itself. Shields v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 746 F.3d 782, 789 (7th Cir. 2014);

see also Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Thus,

under Monell, for Plaintiff to recover from Wexford, he must show that the alleged

constitutional violation was caused by: (1) an express policy that caused a constitutional

deprivation when enforced; (2) a widespread practice that was so permanent and well-

settled that it constituted a custom or practice; or (3) a person with final policymaking

authority. Dean v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 18 F.4th 214, 235 (7th Cir. 2021). Plaintiffs

have also been allowed to pursue claims for the absence of a policy or practice under

Monell. See e.g., Glisson v. Indiana Dept. of Corr., 849 F.3d 372, 381 (7th Cir. 2017) (“in

situations that call for procedures, rules or regulations, the failure to make policy itself

may be actionable.”).

Plaintiff’s allegations are consistent with the theory that Wexford had a policy of

understaffing or a custom of not having a full-time dentist at Shawnee, which has delayed

his dental care for at least four months. These allegations are sufficient at this preliminary

juncture to proceed against Wexford.

By contrast, Plaintiff may not proceed against the “unknown management staff”

that he named as a defendant in this case because it is not clear who this refers to, or what

their role was in the situation described. The unknown management staff are dismissed

without prejudice.

DISPOSITION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Claim 1 of the Complaint (Doc. 1) survives

initial screening as described above against Wexford Health Sources, Inc.. By contrast,

Plaintiff may not pursue a claim against the “unknown management staff”, and the Clerk

of Court is DIRECTED to TERMINATE the Management Staff as a defendant.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to prepare for 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 (Doc. 1), and this Memorandum and Order to Defendants’ place of

employment as identified by Plaintiff. If 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 Defendant, and the

Court will require 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. 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. § 1997e(g).

Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 244, Defendants need only respond to the issues

stated in this Merits Review Order.

If judgment is rendered against Plaintiff, and the judgment includes the payment

of costs under Section 1915, Plaintiff will be required to pay the full amount of the costs,

regardless of whether his application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)(A).

Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to inform the Clerk

of Court and each opposing party of any address changes; the Court will not

independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later

than 14 days after a transfer or other change of 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 failure to prosecute. 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.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to update Plaintiff’s address consistent with

footnote 1, and to send him this Order and a new consent form at Menard. Plaintiff must

return the consent form within 14 days of receipt.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2024

/s David W. Dugan

DAVID W. DUGAN

United States 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 the complaint. It will

likely take at least 60 days from the date of this Order to receive the defendants’ Answers,

but it is entirely possible that it will take 90 days or more. When all of 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 his time, unless otherwise directed by the Court.

The Court wishes to remind the Plaintiff that litigation is often viewed a series of hurdles

that the Plaintiff must clear to get to another hurdle. Initial screening is such a hurdle, but

it is a very low one for the Plaintiff to clear. As noted above, surviving initial screening

only requires the bare statement of a claim that, if proven, could entitle Plaintiff to some

relief. At trial, he will need to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the facts alleged

actually occurred and that those facts satisfy the legal requirements for recovery. Trial is

the highest and most difficult of hurdles for any Plaintiff to clear.