Broadfield v. Livingston County et al

Filing 44

ORDER - Entered by Judge Sara Darrow on 4/7/2017. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint 28 is GRANTED. Clerk is directed to docket the amended complaint attached to Plaintiff's motion. No new service of process shall i ssue. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel 37 is GRANTED to the following extent: Defendant shall: (1) resend the responses listed in his notice of service filed September 9, 2016, see (Doc. 27); and (2) respond to Plaintiff's requests for admi ssions attached to his motion to compel, see (Doc. 37-1 at 10-12). The motion 37 is DENIED as to any other relief requested. Plaintiff's Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas 29 is DENIED. Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Amended Moti on for Extension of Time 36 is GRANTED. Clerk is directed to docket, and then grant, the amended motion attached to Defendant's motion. Defendant's Motion 42 is also GRANTED. Defendant requested until January 15, 2017 to disclose exp ert witnesses and has not since requested additional time. No new deadlines are required for expert disclosures. As to the discovery deadline, the Court finds that Defendant's request for "no less than six (6) months" is excessive at this time. Discovery shall be completed by May 31, 2017. Dispositive motions shall be filed by June 30, 2017. If Defendant seeks additional time, he may file a motion at that time. Defendant's Motion 35 is DENIED as moot. (LN, ilcd)

E-FILED

Friday, 07 April, 2017 09:44:03 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
BRIAN D. BROADFIELD,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
DR. DAN WILLIAMS, et al.
Defendants.

16-1092

ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and presently incarcerated at Lexington Federal Medical
Center, brought the present lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference
to a serious medical need for treatment he received while incarcerated at Livingston County Jail.
The matter comes before this Court for ruling on several outstanding motions.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 28)
Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to amend a pleading a
matter of course within certain timeframes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Plaintiff filed his motion
outside of those timeframes and, thus, he may amend his complaint “only with the other party’s
consent or the court’s leave.” Id. 15(a)(2). The rule requires the Court to “freely give leave
when justice so requires.” Id.
In its Merit Review Opinion, the Court found that Plaintiff stated a claim for deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need against Defendant Williams, the individual who treated
Plaintiff’s medical conditions. (Doc. 11). The Court also severed two unrelated claims, one of
which was asserted against William Cox, the jail’s superintendent. Id. Those claims are

Page 1 of 6

proceeding separately. See Broadfield v. Cox, No. 16-1201 (C.D. Ill., filed Jun. 8, 2016);
Broadfield v. Fosdic, No. 16-1202 (C.D. Ill., filed Jun. 8, 2016).
Plaintiff seeks to add claims against five (5) new defendants: (1) Defendant John Doe
Attending Physician; (2) Defendant Nurse James LNU; (3) Defendant Johnson, the chief
executive officer of Advanced Correctional Healthcare; (4) Defendant Cox, the jail
superintendent; and, (5) Defendant Inman, the assistant jail superintendent. In his proposed
amended complaint, Plaintiff reiterates his allegations against Defendant Williams regarding
treatment he received for his back pain and mental health issues, but he does not make any
specific allegations against the five defendants he seeks to add. Plaintiff’s only specific
allegations are against Defendant Williams.
Furthermore, Plaintiff may not proceed against the medical professionals he seeks to add
solely on the basis that these individuals were responsible for Defendant Williams’ actions in a
supervisory capacity. The same holds true with regard to the jail administrators Plaintiff seeks to
add. “Section 1983 creates a cause of action based on personal liability and predicated upon
fault; thus, liability does not attach unless the individual defendant caused or participated in a
constitutional deprivation.” Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987, 991 (7th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted).
A plaintiff must plead that each official, “though the official’s own individual actions, has
violated the Constitution.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). A government official
may not be held liable under § 1983 on a theory of respondeat superior, that is, for the
unconstitutional acts of his or her subordinates. Id. To be held liable, a government supervisor
“must know about the conduct and facilitate it, approve it, condone it, or turn a blind eye….”
Vance, 97 F.3d at 993 (quoting Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561 (7th Cir. 1995)).

Page 2 of 6

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is granted to the extent that he seeks leave to file
it. However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim
against the defendants he seeks to add. The additional defendants Plaintiff seeks to add will not
be served or added as parties to this lawsuit at this time.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 37)
Plaintiff filed a motion to compel alleging that Defendant Williams failed to respond to
interrogatories, requests for admissions, and requests for production of documents, and provided
inadequate or incomplete Rule 26 disclosures. Defendant responds that he sent responses to
Plaintiff’s discovery requests as evidenced by the notices of service he filed with the Court. See
(Docs. 27, 40). Defendant asserts that he never received Plaintiff’s requests for admissions.
Plaintiff did not attach copies of the Rule 26 disclosures he received from Defendant to
his motion to compel. Thus, the Court is unable to evaluate the responses Plaintiff claims are
inadequate. As to the remainder of the discovery requests, the Court cannot determine the extent
of the discovery exchanged (or not exchanged) between the parties based upon the record now
before the Court. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted to the following extent:
within 30 days of this Order, Defendant shall: (1) resend the responses listed in his notice of
service filed September 9, 2016, see (Doc. 27); and (2) respond to Plaintiff’s requests for
admissions attached to his motion to compel, see (Doc. 37-1 at 10-12). Plaintiff’s motion to
compel is denied as to any other relief requested.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Subpoena (Doc. 29)
Plaintiff filed four (4) subpoenas intended for service upon Advanced Correctional
Healthcare, Livingston County Sheriff’s Department, Knox County Sheriff’s Department, and
the Henry County Sheriff’s Department. Pursuant to Rule 45(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Page 3 of 6

Procedure, only the clerk or an attorney authorized to practice in the issuing court may issue
subpoenas. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(3). The Court’s Scheduling Order requires Plaintiff to file a
motion seeking issuance of a subpoena on nonparties that describes the relevance of the
information sought. See (Doc. 24 at 5-6, ¶ 14). Thus, the Court interprets Plaintiff’s filings as a
motion for issuance of subpoenas.
Plaintiff commands production of the same items in each of his subpoenas: documents
related to the contract for medical services between Advanced Correctional Healthcare (ACH)
and Livingston, Knox, and Henry counties; ACH policies regarding medical treatment, record
keeping, and medication distribution; and, communications between several agencies including
the Livingston County Board, U.S. Marshals Service, and ACH regarding Plaintiff’s medical
care. Defendant asserts that the only information relevant in this case is information regarding
Defendant’s treatment of Plaintiff’s medical conditions.
Defendant is correct that a claim pursuant to Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services of City of
New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), is not currently pending in this lawsuit. Nonetheless, Defendant
does not deny that he was an ACH employee at the time he treated Plaintiff, and he would have
presumably been subject to any ACH policies then in place. The issue in this lawsuit is whether
Defendant was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. A medical
professional’s failure to follow an existing protocol in the course of providing treatment could
support an inference that he acted with deliberate indifference. Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722,
729 (7th Cir. 2016). Therefore, the Court finds that any ACH policy related to medical treatment
of inmates is relevant to the issues at hand. Likewise, any promotional material Defendant
reviewed regarding prescription medications and their side effects could be relevant in showing
Defendant’s state of mind while he was treating Plaintiff.

Page 4 of 6

Plaintiff can obtain this information directly from Defendant via the discovery process;
subpoenas are not necessary at this time. Furthermore, information provided to Knox and Henry
County officials is not relevant to these proceedings. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for
subpoenas to issue is denied.
Defendant’s Motions for Extension of Time (Docs. 35, 36, 42)
Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 36)
is granted. The previous motion (Doc. 35) is denied as moot. Defendant’s motions to extend the
deadlines for disclosure of experts and completion of discovery are granted. New deadlines are
set forth below.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [28] is GRANTED. Clerk
is directed to docket the amended complaint attached to Plaintiff’s motion. No new
service of process shall issue.
2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [37] is GRANTED to the following extent: Defendant
shall: (1) resend the responses listed in his notice of service filed September 9, 2016,
see (Doc. 27); and (2) respond to Plaintiff’s requests for admissions attached to his
motion to compel, see (Doc. 37-1 at 10-12). The motion [37] is DENIED as to any
other relief requested.
3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas [29] is DENIED.
4) Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Motion for Extension of Time [36] is
GRANTED. Clerk is directed to docket, and then grant, the amended motion
attached to Defendant’s motion. Defendant’s Motion [42] is also GRANTED.
Defendant requested until January 15, 2017 to disclose expert witnesses and has not
since requested additional time. No new deadlines are required for expert
disclosures. As to the discovery deadline, the Court finds that Defendant’s request
for “no less than six (6) months” is excessive at this time. Discovery shall be
completed by May 31, 2017. Dispositive motions shall be filed by June 30, 2017. If
Defendant seeks additional time, he may file a motion at that time.

Page 5 of 6

5) Defendant’s Motion [35] is DENIED as moot.
Entered this 7th day of April, 2017.

s/Sara Darrow
SARA DARROW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 6 of 6