Odom v. Wexford Health Sources Inc. et al

Filing 6

MERIT REVIEW ORDER entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 10/13/2020. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1) Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed as a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. 2) If Plaintiff intends to file an amended complaint, he mus t file his complaint within 21 days or on or before November 3, 2020. If Plaintiff fails to file his complaint by the November 3, 2020 deadline or fails to follow the Court's instructions, his case will be dismissed. 3) Plaintiff's motio n for appointment of counsel is also denied with leave to refile once Plaintiff clarifies his intended claims. 5 4) The Clerk is to provide Plaintiff with a blank complaint form to assists him and to reset the internal merit review deadline within 30 days. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER.(SAG, ilcd)

4:20-cv-04101-JES # 6

Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RICHARD ODOM,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
vs.
)
)
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, et. al., )
Defendants
)

No. 20-4101

MERIT REVIEW ORDER
JAMES E. SHADID, U.S. District Judge:
This cause is before the Court for merit review of the Plaintiff’s complaint. The
Court is required by 28 U.S.C. §1915A to “screen” the Plaintiff’s complaint, and through
such process to identify and dismiss any legally insufficient claim, or the entire action if
warranted. A claim is legally insufficient if it “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §1915A.
Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, has filed his complaint against eight Defendants
including Wexford Health Sources, Dr. Stromberger, Mental Health Director Melvin
Hinton, Illinois Department of Corrections Director Jeffreys, Warden Stephanie
Dorethy, Officer McCune, Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) Medical Director
John Doe #1, and Hill Correctional Center Medical Director John Doe #2.
Plaintiff has divided his complaint into five counts including two counts of
deliberate indifference and three counts of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
However, Plaintiff’s complaint simply repeats the same claims.
1 

E-FILED

Tuesday, 13 October, 2020 09:48:23 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

4:20-cv-04101-JES # 6

Page 2 of 6

For instance, Plaintiff’s first allegation of deliberate indifference alleges he suffers
from serious mental health issues (SMI) and the Defendants have been deliberately
indifferent to his need for mental health care. Plaintiff says Wexford has a policy of
deliberately understaffing correctional facilities to save money. All of the Defendants
knew about this problem due to letters, grievances, and other lawsuits.
As a result of this policy, Plaintiff says he was denied mental health care.
Plaintiff says he “asked on several different occasions if he could speak with mental
health because he was feeling depressed and felt that he wasn’t stable and his requests
were ignored.” (Comp., p. 6). Plaintiff says he told several people, but he “was treated
like a nuisance and ignored.” (Comp., p. 7). Nonetheless, Plaintiff also alleges he was
moved to a suicide watch cell due to his statements.
Plaintiff’s second claim of deliberate indifference repeats the same allegations
and confirms he was in a suicide watch cell. (Comp., p. 10-16). Plaintiff says
correctional officers accused him of faking his claims. Plaintiff alleges Defendant
McCune not only told him to kill himself, but also put a razor in his suicide watch cell.
Plaintiff says he complained to Dr. Stromberger about the officers, but he did not take
any action or document the problems.
Plaintiff further claims the lights were left on all day and he was denied exercise,
showers, and hygiene items. Plaintiff does not state how long he was subjected to these
conditions.

2 

4:20-cv-04101-JES # 6

Page 3 of 6

Plaintiff filed grievances and sent letters to the IDOC Director and Medical
Director, but he received no response. Plaintiff also refers to letters from other inmates
concerning the lack of mental health care which were ignored.
There are several problems with Plaintiff’s complaint. First, Plaintiff has failed to
provide enough information to put each Defendant on notice of the claim against them.
Plaintiff need only provide “the bare minimum facts necessary to put the defendant on
notice of the claim so that he can file an answer.” Higgs v. Carver, 286 F.3d 437, 439 (7th
Cir. 2002). Plaintiff has not provided any time frame for his allegations. When did he
ask for mental health care and when were his requests denied? When was he placed on
suicide watch? It is possible Plaintiff intended to allege two, distinct incidents, but the
Court cannot decipher Plaintiff’s claim or claims without at least a general time frame.
Second, Plaintiff has not indicated how each named Defendant is responsible for
his claim. In order to hold an individual liable under Section 1983, Plaintiff must “show
that the defendants were personally responsible for the deprivation of their rights.”
Wilson v. Warren Cty., Illinois, 2016 WL 3878215, at *3 (7th Cir. 2016). “A defendant is
personally responsible ‘if the conduct causing the constitutional deprivation occurs at
his direction or with his knowledge and consent.’” Id. quoting Gentry v. Duckworth, 65
F.3d 555, 561 (7th Cir. 1995). A individual cannot be held liable simply because he or
she was a supervisor. See Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001).
Many of the identified Defendants such the IDOC Director or IDOC Medical
Director are not typically involved in decisions concerning the mental health care
provided to an individual inmate. The fact that Plaintiff sent letters to IDOC
3 

4:20-cv-04101-JES # 6

Page 4 of 6

supervisors is not sufficient to establish liability. See Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 595
(7th Cir. 2009).
Finally, the Court notes Plaintiff makes specific reference to two class-action
lawsuits concerning either medical or mental health care within IDOC. See Lippert v.
Ghosh, Case No. 10-4603 in the Northern District of Illinois; Rasho v. Walker, Case No. 071298 in the Central District of Illinois. However, if Plaintiff intends to file a lawsuit for
damages alleging deliberate indifference to his own mental health care, he must
provide information specifically concerning the lack of care provide to him.
As noted, Plaintiff’s complaint also includes three state law claims of intentional
infliction of emotional distress. Again, the claims seem to repeat the same basic
allegation based on the same facts alleged in support of his Eighth Amendment claim.
Plaintiff must again provide a general time frame and some explanation of how the
Defendants were involved.
Finally, Plaintiff asks for damages and the injunctive relief ordered in the Rasho
case. Plaintiff may pursue his individual claim for damages in this lawsuit. However, if
Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief based on enforcement of the settlement agreement in
Rasho, he must pursue his claim in the Rasho case. See Rasho, 2018 WL 2392847 at *6
(C.D. Ill., May 25, 2018) (stating that the “Settlement Agreement allows for the Plaintiffs
to seek relief from this Court if there is a dispute as to whether or not the Defendants
are in substantial compliance.”); Daniel v. Justice, 2019 WL 4894586, at *2 (S.D.Ill. Oct. 4,
2019)(inmate may proceed with individual claim for damages alleging he was denied
mental health care, but a claim to enforce Rasho settlement agreement must be
4 

4:20-cv-04101-JES # 6

Page 5 of 6

addressed in that case); see also Sparks v. Baldwin, 2019 WL 2326207, at *2 (S.D.Ill May 5,
2019); Daniel v. Baldwin, 2019 WL 2248629, at *1 (S.D.Ill. May 24, 2019); Owens v. Mason,
2016 WL 6143039, at *2 (S.D.Ill. Oct. 21, 2016).
Plaintiff’s complaint is therefore dismissed as a violation of Rule 8 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to provide proper notice of the intended claims. The
Court will allow Plaintiff additional time to file an amended complaint to clarify his
claims. Plaintiff is advised an amended complaint must stand complete on its own,
must include all claims and Defendants, and must not refer to any previous complaint.
If Plaintiff intends to allege a claim of deliberate indifference to his serious
mental health condition, he should provide the general time frame he requested mental
health care and how he requested mental health care. Plaintiff should explain how each
Defendants was specifically involved in failing to provide adequate care. Plaintiff
should also clarify when he was placed on suicide watch, how long he was on suicide
watch, and whether he was provided mental health care during this time frame.
Any amended complaint must be filed within 21 days of this order or on or
before November 3, 2020 and must abide by the instructions provided. Plaintiff’s
motion for appointment of counsel is also denied with leave to refile once Plaintiff
clarifies his intended claims. [5]
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed as a violation of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8.

5 

4:20-cv-04101-JES # 6

Page 6 of 6

2) If Plaintiff intends to file an amended complaint, he must file his complaint
within 21 days or on or before November 3, 2020. If Plaintiff fails to file his
complaint by the November 3, 2020 deadline or fails to follow the Court’s
instructions, his case will be dismissed.
3) Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is also denied with leave to refile
once Plaintiff clarifies his intended claims. [5]
4) The Clerk is to provide Plaintiff with a blank complaint form to assists him
and to reset the internal merit review deadline within 30 days.
ENTERED this 13th day of October, 2020.

s/ James E. Shadid
____________________________________________
JAMES E. SHADID
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6