Levi v. Bednarz et al
Filing
11
OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 01/31/2012. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. (1) The hearing scheduled for February 6, 2012, is cancelled. The clerk is directed to notify Plaintiff's prison of the cancellation. (2) Pursuant to its review of the Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff states a federal constitutional claim against Defendants Bednarz and Lochard for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs. Accordingly, Plaintiff's petition to proceed in forma pauperis is granted on this claim (d/e 2). Any other claims shall not be included in the case, except at the Court's discretion on motion by a party for good cause shown or pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. (3) Defendants Saddler and Phillips are dismissed for failure to state a claim against them. (4) This case is referred to the Magistrate Judge for entry of a Scheduling Order directing service and setting a Rule 16 conference date. A copy of this Opinion shall be served with the Complaint and Scheduling Order. (5) Defendants shall file an answer within the time prescribed by Local Rule. A motion to dismiss is not an answer. The answer should include all defenses appropriate under the Federal Rules. The answer and subsequent pleadings shall be to the issues and claims stated in this Opinion. (DM, ilcd)
E-FILED
Tuesday, 31 January, 2012 01:14:47 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
RONALD ANTHONY LEVI,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL BEDNARZ, M.D.,
HUGH LOCHARD, M.D.,
MICHELLE R.B. SADDLER, and
LARRY PHILLIPS,
Defendants.
12-CV-3002
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and currently detained in the Rushville
Treatment and Detention Center, seeks leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on his claim of deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs.
The “privilege to proceed without posting security for costs and fees
is reserved to the many truly impoverished litigants who, within the
1
District Court's sound discretion, would remain without legal remedy if
such privilege were not afforded to them.” Brewster v. North Am. Van
Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 1972). Additionally, a court
must dismiss cases proceeding in forma pauperis “at any time” if the
action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim, even if part of the
filing fee has been paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)(2). Accordingly, this Court
grants leave to proceed in forma pauperis only if the complaint states a
federal claim. A hearing was scheduled to assist in this review, but the
hearing will be cancelled as unnecessary.
LEGAL STANDARD
To state a claim, the allegations must set forth a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief .”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Factual allegations must give enough detail to
give “‘fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.’” EEOC v. Concentra Health Serv., Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th
Cir. 2007), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544
(2007)(add’l citation omitted). The factual “allegations must plausibly
2
suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief, raising that possibility above
a ‘speculative level.’” Id., quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. “A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged . . . . Threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,
do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009), citing
Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555-56. However, pro se pleadings are liberally
construed when applying this standard. Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541,
546 (7th Cir. 2009).
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff alleges a panoply of medical ailments, including a frozen
shoulder, knee and finger injuries, diabetic neuropathy, and chronically
swollen lymph nodes. He alleges that Defendants have refused to follow
the prescriptions and orders of outside doctors for treating these
conditions.
Plaintiff’s own description of his conditions and symptoms allows a
3
plausible inference that he has serious medical needs. Likewise, his
allegations that the orders of doctors outside the facility have been
ignored allows a plausible inference of deliberate indifference. Arnett v.
Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 753 (7th Cir. 2011)(“Allegations of refusal to
provide an inmate with prescribed medication or to follow the advice of a
specialist can also state an Eighth Amendment claim.”); Gil v. Reed, 381
F.3d 649, 663-64 (7th Cir. 2004)(refusal to follow specialist’s advice may
allow plausible inference of deliberate indifference).
However, the claim will proceed only against those defendants with
medical training, Drs. Bednarz and Lochard. Defendants without
medical training are generally entitled to, and must, rely on the medical
professionals to diagnose and treat an inmate’s medical conditions.
Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 656 (7th Cir. 2005)(“‘If a prisoner is
under the care of medical experts... a nonmedical prison official will
generally be justified in believing that the prisoner is in capable
hands.’”)(quoted cite omitted).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
4
1) The hearing scheduled for February 6, 2012, is cancelled. The
clerk is directed to notify Plaintiff’s prison of the cancellation.
2) Pursuant to its review of the Complaint, the Court finds that
Plaintiff states a federal constitutional claim against Defendants Bednarz
and Lochard for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical
needs. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s petition to proceed in forma pauperis is
granted on this claim (d/e 2). Any other claims shall not be included in
the case, except at the Court’s discretion on motion by a party for good
cause shown or pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
3) Defendants Saddler and Phillips are dismissed for failure to state
a claim against them.
4) This case is referred to the Magistrate Judge for entry of a
Scheduling Order directing service and setting a Rule 16 conference date.
A copy of this Opinion shall be served with the Complaint and
Scheduling Order.
5) Defendants shall file an answer within the time prescribed by
Local Rule. A motion to dismiss is not an answer. The answer should
5
include all defenses appropriate under the Federal Rules. The answer and
subsequent pleadings shall be to the issues and claims stated in this
Opinion.
ENTERED: January 31, 2012
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?