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”
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 to relief that is plausible on its face”
- corporation can be held liable for deliberate indifference if it had a policy or practice that caused the violation
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CLIFFORD W. BAKER,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 23-cv-1739-NJR
JOHN DOE NURSE PRACTITIONER,
CHRISTINE BROWN,
CRYSTAL CROW, A. DESAI,
DR. PERCY MYERS, and
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff Clifford W. Baker, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”) who is currently incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center, brings this
action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His
original Complaint alleging deliberate indifference in the treatment of his broken finger
was dismissed for failure to state a claim (Docs. 1, 11). Baker was granted leave to amend
his pleading. On September 19, 2023, he filed his Amended Complaint (Doc. 12). Baker
alleges the defendants acted with deliberate indifference in treating his broken finger, 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, Baker makes the following allegations: On February
9, 2023, while playing basketball in the Pinckneyville gym, Baker broke his finger.
(Doc. 12, pp. 3, 23). He was immediately sent to the healthcare unit. At approximately
9:10 a.m., he was evaluated by two nurses. They informed Baker that Dr. Myers would
arrive at the prison at 10:00 a.m., and he would have to wait for Dr. Myers to evaluate the
injury (Id. at p. 3). At 10:50 a.m., Dr. Myers examined Baker’s finger, noted that it was
possibly fractured, and ordered Baker’s transfer to the emergency room for further
treatment (Id.). Baker informed Dr. Myers that he was in pain and was experiencing
numbness from the swelling. Dr. Myers sent Baker back to his cell until staff were
available for transport (Id.).
At 6:30 p.m., Baker was transported to the Pinckneyville Community Hospital
Emergency Room where he received an x-ray and an examination by an emergency room
doctor (Id. at pp. 3, 23-29). The doctor informed Baker that his finger was broken in two
locations and stated that he would need to be seen by an orthopedic doctor within
24 hours (Id.). The doctor noted that he may need surgery to repair the ligaments (Id.).
Baker was fitted with a plaster wrap and directed not to take the wrap off until he saw
the orthopedist (Id.).
Baker returned to Pinckneyville and was prescribed Ibuprofen for his injury (Id.).
He suffered from extreme pain but was not sent out to the orthopedist as previously
directed by the emergency room doctor (Id.). On February 10, 2023, Baker submitted an
emergency grievance. On February 14, 2023, Warden Mitchell deemed the grievance an
emergency, but the grievance officer and the Administrative Review Board (“ARB”)
ultimately denied the grievance (Id.). The medical records indicate that on February 10,
2023, Dr. Myers placed a referral for an orthopedic evaluation (Id. at p. 36). He marked
that it was not urgent (Id.).
After submitting the grievance, Baker tried to obtain medical care for his finger.
On February 11, 2023, he spoke to a correctional officer and noted that his hand was
painful and throbbing. He also noted that he was unable to shower with the wrap on his
hand (Id. at p. 4). On February 12, 2023, he stopped a nurse and informed her of his pain.
On February 14, 2023, he asked for a crisis team in order to obtain care, but his request
was denied.
On February 15, 2023, Baker finally saw John Doe Nurse Practitioner about his
injury (Id. at p. 4). The nurse practitioner informed Baker that he was scheduled to see an
orthopedic surgeon and that he should refrain from removing the wrap or showering
prior to the appointment (Id.). Baker complained of pain and numbness and the John Doe
Nurse Practitioner provided him with Tylenol (Id.).
On March 22, 2023, Baker wrote to Healthcare Unit Administrator Christine Brown
and inquired as to why he had not yet been seen by an orthopedist (Id. at p. 4). He
informed her that his finger was still throbbing, and he was unable to shower with the
wrap. Baker notes that Brown is in charge of overseeing orders for referrals to outside
specialists, yet she failed to schedule an appointment with the orthopedist (Id. at p. 5). On
April 6, 2023, Baker spoke with Warden Crystal Crow about his broken finger. He
informed her of the pain and numbness in his finger (Id.). Crow informed Baker that she
would look into the issue, but he still did not receive care (Id.).
On April 12, 2023, Baker saw Physician Assistant A. Desai (Id. at p. 5). Desai told
Baker that he should have been sent out immediately and that she did not know what
caused the delay (Id.). She informed him that he would likely suffer permanent damage
due to the delay but that she would submit another request for referral to an orthopedist
(Id.). Baker informed Desai of the continued pain and numbness, as well as his inability
to properly bend the finger or put pressure on the digit (Id.). Baker alleges that Desai
displayed deliberate indifference because she failed to immediately send him out to be
seen by an orthopedist despite his clear signs of distress and discomfort (Id. at p. 6).
On April 26, 2023, Baker finally saw an orthopedist in St. Louis, Missouri (Id.). He
was prescribed physical therapy to exercise the ligaments and tendons. The doctor noted
that Baker was unable to fully flex the finger (Id.).
Baker alleges that all of the defendants failed to obtain immediate care for his
injury despite knowing that the emergency room doctor previously instructed Baker to
be seen the day after his injury. He alleges that Dr. Myers failed to see him after his return
from the emergency room and failed to ensure that he was sent to the orthopedist the
following day (Id. at p. 6). He further alleges that Wexford Health Sources, Inc. is liable
because it employed the staff that failed to follow the emergency room doctor’s orders
for an immediate referral to an orthopedist (Id.). He also alleges Wexford failed to
alleviate Baker’s pain and failed to provide timely care (Id.). Baker notes that he is unsure
whether delays were caused by understaffing or due to the deliberate indifference of staff
at Pinckneyville.
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
John Doe Nurse Practitioner, Christine Brown, Crystal
Crow, A. Desai, and Dr. Percy Myers for delaying treatment
for Baker’s broken finger.
Count 2: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Wexford Health Sources, Inc. for delaying treatment for
Baker’s broken finger.
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
At this stage, Baker states a claim in Count 1 for deliberate indifference as to
Christine Brown, Crystal Crow, and Dr. Myers. Baker alleges that he spoke to Crow and
wrote a letter to Brown requesting care for his injured finger and they failed to respond
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”).
to his requests. That is enough to state a claim at this stage. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
104 (1976); Chatham v. Davis, 839 F.3d 679, 684 (7th Cir. 2016); Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d
859, 865 (7th Cir. 2012) (delay in treatment). As to Dr. Myers, Baker alleges that he was
directed to follow-up with Dr. Myers after his visit to the emergency room, but that Dr.
Myers failed to examine him after his return. He further points to medical records from
the emergency room directing that Baker be seen by an orthopedist the following day
(Doc. 1, p. 30). Although Dr. Myers placed a referral for an evaluation, he failed to mark
it as urgent. Baker was not seen by an orthopedist until April 2023. That is enough at this
stage to state a deliberate indifference claim against Dr. Myers for the delay in referring
Baker to an orthopedist.
Baker fails, however, to state a claim against A. Desai and the John Doe Nurse
Practitioner. He alleges that he saw each provider for treatment and alleges that they
failed to refer him to an orthopedist in a timely manner. But his allegations demonstrate
that each medical professional provided him with care. Baker alleges that the John Doe
Nurse Practitioner should have ensured that Baker was seen by an orthopedist the day
after his injury (Id. at p. 4). But the allegations indicate that the nurse practitioner noted
that Baker was already scheduled to be seen by an orthopedist. He also provided Baker
with pain medication. Because the allegations suggest that Baker was already scheduled
with the orthopedist at the time the nurse practitioner examined him, the allegations do
not suggest deliberate indifference on the part of the nurse practitioner. He treated Baker
and provided him with pain medication. As to A. Desai, she examined Baker on April 12,
2023, and indicated that she would submit another referral for an orthopedic evaluation
(Doc. 12, p. 5). Baker was subsequently scheduled and seen by an orthopedist on April
26, 2023. These allegations do not suggest that Desai acted with deliberate indifference.
Thus, Count 1 is DISMISSED without prejudice as to A. Desai and the John Doe Nurse
Practitioner.
Baker also fails to state a claim against Wexford Health Sources, Inc. He alleges
that Wexford had knowledge of his need for urgent care and failed to take steps to ensure
that he was referred to the orthopedist as ordered by the emergency room doctor. He also
alleges that Wexford is liable because it employed the prison doctors who treated him.
But Wexford cannot be liable for the actions of its employees because respondeat superior,
or supervisor, liability does not apply to Section 1983 actions. Shields v. Illinois Dep’t of
Corr., 746 F.3d 782, 789 (7th Cir. 2014). Wexford can only be liable if its policies and
practices led to the delay in Baker’s treatment. See Woodward v. Corr. Med. Serv. of Ill., Inc.,
368 F.3d 917, 927 (7th Cir. 2004) (corporation can be held liable for deliberate indifference
if it had a policy or practice that caused the violation). Baker fails to point to any such
policy. He notes that delays might have been due to understaffing but he fails to allege
that Wexford had a policy related to the staffing at the prison. Without something more,
Baker fails to state a claim against Wexford. Thus, Count 2 against Wexford is
DISMISSED without prejudice.
Disposition
For the reasons stated above, Count 1 shall proceed against Dr. Percy Myers,
Christine Brown, and Crystal Crow. The claims against A. Desai, John Doe Nurse
Practitioner, and Wexford Health Sources, Inc. are DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendants Dr. Percy Myers, Christine Brown,
and Crystal Crow: (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 each defendant’s place of employment as identified by Baker. 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 Baker, 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 Baker, 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, Baker 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 14 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: February 15, 2024 Tl g G2
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 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.