Quezada v. Clarenson
Filing
6
OPINION (See Written Opinion): This cause is set for further scheduling procedures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 on November 26, 2013, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon as the Court can reach the case, before U. S. District Judge Sue E. Myerscough by telephone con ference. The conference will be cancelled if service has been accomplished and no pending issues need discussion. Accordingly, no writ shall issue for Plaintiff's presence unless directed by the Court. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 9/23/2013. (VM, ilcd)
E-FILED
Monday, 23 September, 2013 10:44:14 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
JONATHAN QUEZADA,
Plaintiff,
v.
NURSE CLARENSON,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
13-CV-3224
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se from incarceration in Western
Illinois Correctional Center, seeks leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on claims arising from Nurse Clarenson’s failure to
properly treat Plaintiff’s third degree burn.
The case is before the Court for a merit review pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. In reviewing the Complaint, the Court accepts the
factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in Plaintiff's
favor. Turley v. Rednour, --- F.3d ---, 2013 WL 3336713 * 2 (7th Cir.
2103). However, conclusory statements and labels are insufficient.
Enough facts must be provided to "'state a claim for relief that is
Page 1 of 6
plausible on its face.'" Alexander v. U.S., 2013 WL 3215667 *2 (7th
Cir. 2013)(quoted cite omitted).
Plaintiff was working in the prison kitchen on April 9, 2013,
on the 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. shift. While assisting another inmate
worker with draining a large pot of grits, Plaintiff was severely
burned on his left forehand, fingers, and wrists in an area 8 ½
inches long by 4 inches wide.
Plaintiff was immediately taken to healthcare for emergency
treatment for third degree burns, where he encountered Nurse
Clarenson. Nurse Clarenson allegedly recklessly washed the wound
with too much pressure, scrubbing away Plaintiff’s skin. Nurse
Clarenson then applied an inadequate amount of burn ointment
and sloppily dressed the burn, leaving parts of the burn exposed.
Two Tylenols were prescribed, which were insufficient to relieve
Plaintiff's pain, and Plaintiff was told to check back at 8:00 a.m.
Plaintiff suffered for 6 ½ hours in extreme pain, his swelling
increasing, until he saw a different nurse on the next shift.
Plaintiff’s wound was then treated with sufficient ointment and a
dressing was properly placed on the wound.
Page 2 of 6
Plaintiff believes that Nurse Clarenson’s deficient care caused
his unnecessary, severe suffering and worsened Plaintiff's injury.
Nurse Clarenson’s actions were investigated by internal affairs.
Plaintiff’s attempts to grieve the problem were unsuccessful.
Accepting Plaintiff’s allegations as true, Nurse Clarenson’s
actions were arguably such a substantial departure from accepted
professional judgment that Plaintiff states a plausible claim against
Clarenson for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s medical needs in
violation of Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights. Negligence is not
deliberate indifference, and Plaintiff cannot pursue a negligence
claim unless he attaches a physician's report finding some merit to
the claim, which he has not done. 735 ILCS 5/2-622.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1)
Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds that Plaintiff states a claim for
deliberate indifference to his serious medical need for treatment of
the burn he suffered on or around April 9, 2013. This case
proceeds solely on the claims identified in this paragraph. Any
additional claims shall not be included in the case, except at the
Page 3 of 6
Court’s discretion on motion by a party for good cause shown or
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
2)
If a Defendant fails to sign and return a Waiver of
Service to the Clerk within 30 days after the Waiver is sent, the
Court will take appropriate steps to effect formal service
through the U.S. Marshal’s Service on that Defendant and will
require that Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2).
3)
With respect to a Defendant who no longer works at the
address provided by Plaintiff, the entity for whom that Defendant
worked while at that address shall provide to the Clerk said
Defendant's current work address, or, if not known, said
Defendant's forwarding address. This information shall be used
only for effectuating service. Documentation of forwarding
addresses shall be retained only by the Clerk and shall not be
maintained in the public docket nor disclosed by the Clerk.
4)
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
Page 4 of 6
Federal Rules. The answer and subsequent pleadings shall be to
the issues and claims stated in this Opinion.
5)
Plaintiff shall serve upon any Defendant who has been
served but who is not represented by counsel a copy of every filing
submitted by Plaintiff for consideration by the Court and shall also
file a certificate of service stating the date on which the copy was
mailed. Any paper received by a District Judge or Magistrate Judge
that has not been filed with the Clerk or that fails to include a
required certificate of service shall be struck by the Court.
6)
Once counsel has appeared for a Defendant, Plaintiff
need not send copies of his filings to that Defendant or to that
Defendant's counsel. Instead, the Clerk will file Plaintiff's document
electronically and send a notice of electronic filing to defense
counsel. The notice of electronic filing shall constitute service on
Defendants pursuant to Local Rule 5.3. If electronic service on
Defendants is not available, Plaintiff will be notified and instructed
accordingly.
7)
This cause is set for further scheduling procedures under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 on November 26, 2013, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon
as the Court can reach the case, before U. S. District Judge Sue E.
Page 5 of 6
Myerscough by telephone conference. The conference will be
cancelled if service has been accomplished and no pending issues
need discussion. Accordingly, no writ shall issue for Plaintiff’s
presence unless directed by the Court.
8)
Counsel for Defendants is hereby granted leave to depose
Plaintiff at his place of confinement. Counsel for Defendants shall
arrange the time for the deposition.
9)
Plaintiff shall immediately notify the Court, in writing, of
any change in his mailing address and telephone number.
Plaintiff's failure to notify the Court of a change in mailing address
or phone number will result in dismissal of this lawsuit, with
prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO
attempt service on Defendants pursuant to the Court’s
standard procedures.
ENTERED: September 23, 2013
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 6 of 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?