Hughes et al v. Mitchell-Lawshea et al
Filing
16
MERIT REVIEW OPINION (See Written Opinion): The Clerk is directed to dismiss Defendants John Doe #1 (Wexford Regional Manager); John Doe #2 (Senior Staffing Consultant); John Doe #3 and "any and all other defendants" for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Clerk is also to add Defendant Wexford Health Source to this lawsuit. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 6/29/2015. (VM, ilcd)
E-FILED
Monday, 29 June, 2015 09:47:52 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MICHAEL HUGHES, et.al.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. JACQUELINE MITCHELLLAWSHEA, et.al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
15-CV-3114
MERIT REVIEW OPINION
The four Plaintiffs in this action are detained in the Rushville
Treatment and Detention Center and seek leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. The "privilege to proceed without posting security for
costs and fees is reserved to the many truly impoverished litigants
who, within the 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).
Page 1 of 9
In reviewing the complaint, the Court accepts the factual
allegations as true, liberally construing them in Plaintiffs’ favor.
Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013). However,
conclusory statements and labels are insufficient. Enough facts
must be provided to "'state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face.'" Alexander v. U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(quoted
cite omitted).
The Plaintiffs allege they are provided inadequate dental care
at the Rushville facility and the Defendants have been deliberately
indifferent to their serious dental conditions. Plaintiffs state
Defendant Dr. Jacqueline Mitchell-Lawshea is the only dentist for
all 600 residents, works only 15 hours a week, and leaves detainees
to suffer without treatment. For instance, Plaintiff Michael Hughes
says he submitted a Health Care Request (HCR) for a painful cavity
which was diagnosed on June 29, 2014, but one year later, he still
has not received treatment. Plaintiff Jeffrey Hargett says he filed an
HCR regarding a painful hole in one of his teeth, but has never
received treatment. Plaintiff Ronnie Brazzell filed a HCR regarding
a painful cavity on October 27, 2013, but received no response for
one year. Finally, Plaintiff Lawrence Hayes complained of constant
Page 2 of 9
pain from broken teeth, but it took several months to receive any
response.
The Plaintiffs have adequately alleged a constitutional violation
since deliberate indifference to serious dental needs violates the
Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. Board v.
Farnham, 394 F.3d 469, 480 (7th Cir.2005)(“At the outset, we
reiterate our view that ‘dental care is one of the most important
medical needs of inmates.’ ”)(quoted cites omitted). However, the
Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged a claim against each of the
thirteen named Defendants. For instance, the Plaintiffs final
Defendant is listed as “any and all other defendants discovered
through the course of discovery to have participated in the events
and actions complained of.” (Comp., p. 1). The court will dismiss
these unknown Defendants because “it is pointless to include lists
of anonymous defendants in federal court; this type of placeholder
does not open the door to relation back under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15, nor can it otherwise help the plaintiff.” Wudtke v.
Davel, 128 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir.1997) (citations omitted).
Plaintiffs have adequately stated a claim against Dentist Dr.
Mitchell-Lawshea. The Defendants also state the dentist has in
Page 3 of 9
some previous, unidentified litigation claimed the nursing staff is
responsible for keeping track of many of the HCRs which
contributes to delays and even lost requests. Therefore, the
Plaintiffs have named six Jane Doe Nurses as Defendants. For the
purposes of notice pleading, the court will allow the Plaintiff to
proceed against the nurses, but Plaintiffs are advised they must not
only name the specific nurses, but also demonstrate they were
involved in handling the Plaintiff’s specific HCR requests. “A
defendant cannot be held liable in a §1983 action unless he caused
or participated in the alleged constitutional deprivation.” McBride v.
Soos, 679 F.2d 1223, 1227 (7th Cir. 1982).
The Plaintiffs have also listed Nursing Director Danielle WalkerLow as a Defendant, but they only allege she has admitted one
dentist is not sufficient to handle the workload. The Plaintiffs claim
Walker-Low is responsible for this deficiency because she is a
supervisor, but a nurse would not have supervisory authority over a
dentist or the Dentist’s schedule. Nonetheless, based on the
Plaintiffs claims, it appears Defendant Walker-Low and her staff
were responsible for responding to HCRs. Therefore, the Plaintiffs
have adequately stated a claim against the Nursing Director.
Page 4 of 9
The Plaintiffs claim they complained to Rushville’s Director,
Gregg Scott, and Medical Director, Michael Bednarz, about their
need for dental care and both were well aware of the problems with
providing adequate care for residents. The Plaintiffs have
adequately articulated a claim against both Scott and Bednarz.
The remaining Defendants include Wexford Health Source
Regional Manager John Doe, Wexford Health Source Senior Staffing
Consultant John Doe, and the John Doe “responsible for the
contracted hours worked” by Rushville’s dentist. Plaintiffs say they
are suing these individuals in their individual and official
capacities, but are unable to identify “the defendants by name that
are responsible for Wexford Health Sources’ understaffing…”
(Comp., p. 11). The Plaintiffs have not even indicated whether they
have any reason to believe the job positions they have identified
exist within Wexford.
While not artfully pleaded, it appears the Plaintiffs intend to sue
Wexford Health Source in its official capacity based on its policy
and practice of providing inadequate staffing and inadequate dental
care. Therefore, the court will add Defendant Wexford Health
Source and dismiss the individual and unidentified Defendants as
Page 5 of 9
redundant. If the court has misapprehended Plaintiffs intended
claims, they may file a motion for leave to amend their complaint.
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiffs’ petitions to proceed in forma pauperis are
granted.(3,4,5,6). Pursuant to a review of the Complaint, the Court
finds that Plaintiff alleges Defendants Wexford Health Source, Dr.
Jaqueline Mitchell-Lawshea, Michael Bednarz, Danielle Walker-Low,
Gregg Scott and six Jane Doe Nurses violated their Fourteenth
Amendment rights based on inadequate dental care and deliberate
indifference to their serious dental conditions. This case proceeds
solely on the claims identified in this paragraph. Any additional
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.
2.
This case is now in the process of service. Plaintiff is
advised to wait until counsel has appeared for Defendants before
filing any motions, in order to give Defendants notice and an
opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed before
Defendants' counsel has filed an appearance will generally be
Page 6 of 9
denied as premature. Plaintiff need not submit any evidence to the
Court at this time, unless otherwise directed by the Court.
3.
The Court will attempt service on Defendants by sending
each Defendant a waiver of service. Defendants have 60 days from
the date the waiver of service is sent to file an Answer. If
Defendants have not filed Answers or appeared through counsel
within 90 days of the entry of this order, Plaintiff may file a motion
requesting the status of service. After counsel has appeared for
Defendants, the Court will enter a scheduling order setting
deadlines for discovery and dispositive motions.
4.
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.
5.
Defendants shall file an answer within 60 days of the day
the waiver of service is sent by the Clerk. A motion to dismiss is
Page 7 of 9
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.
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.
Counsel for Defendants is hereby granted leave to depose
Plaintiff at Plaintiff's place of confinement. Counsel for Defendants
shall arrange the time for the deposition.
8.
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.
Page 8 of 9
9.
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).
10. The Clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified
protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act.
11. The Clerk is directed to attempt service on Defendants
pursuant to the standard procedures.
12. The Clerk is directed to dismiss Defendants John Doe #1
(Wexford Regional Manager); John Doe #2 (Senior Staffing
Consultant); John Doe #3 and “any and all other defendants”
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
13. The Clerk is also to add Defendant Wexford Health
Source to this lawsuit.
ENTERED: June 29, 2015
FOR THE COURT:
s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MEYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 9 of 9
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?