Brown v. Sajjad et al
Filing
13
WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 4/4/2012: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint (# 76 in case no. 10 C 3609) is granted. His amended complaint should be filed in case no. 12 C 49. Plaintiff may proceed with his amended complaint (# 12 in case no. 12 C 49) against Dr. Sajjad and Roseland Community Hospital. The Clerk shall issue summons for service of the amended complaint on these Defendants by the U.S. Marshal. The Court clarifies that its 2/13/12 order in case no. 10 C 3609 # 67 consolidated these cases for discovery only. A separate clarification order will be entered in case no. 10 C 3609. This order will be entered in only case no. 12 C 49. Plaintiff still may file an amended complaint in case no. 10 C 3610 in accordance with the Court's 3/13/12 order. Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 4/4/2012: Mailed notice (tlm)
Order Form (01/2005)
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge
Robert M. Dow, Jr.
CASE NUMBER
12 C 49
consolidated with
10 C 3609 & 10 C 3610
CASE
TITLE
Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge
DATE
April 4, 2012
Archie Brown (N-21714) vs. Dr. Sajjad, et al.
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint [#76 in case no. 10 C 3609] is granted. His amended
complaint should be filed in case no. 12 C 49. Plaintiff may proceed with his amended complaint [#12 in case no.
12 C 49] against Dr. Sajjad and Roseland Community Hospital. The Clerk shall issue summons for service of the
amended complaint on these Defendants by the U.S. Marshal. The Court clarifies that its 2/13/12 order in case no.
10 C 3609 [#67] consolidated these cases for discovery only. A separate clarification order will be entered in case
no. 10 C 3609. This order will be entered in only case no. 12 C 49. Plaintiff still may file an amended complaint
in case no. 10 C 3610 in accordance with the Court’s 3/13/12 order.
O[ For further details see text below.]
Docketing to mail notices.
STATEMENT
Plaintiff Archie Brown, an inmate at the Western Illinois Correctional Center, has three related cases that
have been consolidated for purposes of discovery. In case no. 10 C 3609, Plaintiff alleges that he told Chicago
police officers that he had been prescribed psychiatric medication; that he was hearing voices telling him to kill
himself; and that, after the officers ignored his complaints, he attempted suicide by cutting his wrist with a torn open
soda can. In case no. 12 C 49, Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Sajjad at the Roseland Community Hospital refused to refer
Plaintiff for a psychiatric consult and disregarded Plaintiff’s complaints about hearing voices. In case no. 10 C
3610, Plaintiff alleges that officers at the Cook County Jail similarly ignored his complaints about hearing voices
and his need for psychiatric medication, and that he later attempted to hang himself.
On March 13, 2012, at a status hearing for all three cases, Plaintiff indicated that he was going to file
amended complaints in cases nos. 10 C 3610 (identifying previously unnamed jail offices) and 12 C 49 (better
stating his claims against the Roseland doctor). Currently before the court is Plaintiff’s amended complaint in case
no. 12 C 49. Plaintiff provides some additional details about his claims against Dr. Sajjad and seeks to include
Roseland Community Hospital as a Defendant. Having conducted a preliminary review, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
the amended complaint may proceed against Dr. Sajjad and Roseland Community Hospital. Plaintiff alleges in his
amended complaint that he informed Dr. Sajjad that he was hearing voices and that he had been prescribed
psychotropic medication, but that Dr. Sajjad refused to refer him for a psychiatric evaluation. Plaintiff further
asserts that Roseland Community Hospital was aware of the failure of Dr. Sajjad and its doctors to investigate a
patient’s need for psychiatric care and is liable for failing to supervise its physicians. Such allegations state
colorable claims of deliberate indifference. Rice ex rel. Rice v. Correctional Medical Services, __ F.3d __, 2012
WL 917291 at *20, 29-30 (7th Cir. March 20, 2012) (a physician may act with deliberate indifference for ignoring
a serious psychological need or ignoring a suicide risk, and a corporation acting under the color of state law, such
as a hospital, is treated like a municipality in a § 1983 action); Alexander v. City of South Bend, 433 F.3d 550, 557
(7th Cir. 2006) (§ 1983 liability against a municipality or similar entity may be established by demonstrating a
12C49 Archie Brown (N-21714) vs. Dr. Sajjad, et al.
Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT
custom of poor training or inadequate supervision). Plaintiff may thus proceed with his amended complaint against
Dr. Sajjad and Roseland Community Hospital in case no. 12 C 49.
The Clerk shall issue summonses for service of the amended complaint on both Dr. Sajjad and Roseland
Community Hospital, and the U.S. Marshal is directed to serve these Defendants. The Marshal may forward to
Plaintiff any forms necessary for service. Plaintiff’s failure to return forms to the Marshal may result in the dismissal
of Defendants. The Marshal may attempt to obtain a waiver of service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d), but if unable
to obtain a waiver, he must attempt personal service. If Dr. Sajjad has already been served, the Marshal need not
again serve him and his attorney may simply respond to the amended complaint, as opposed to the original.
Plaintiff must submit a judge’s copy of all filings and must send a copy of all filings to Defendants, or to their
attorney, after one enters an appearance. Plaintiff must include a certificate of service with each filing that states to
whom and the date copies were mailed. Letters sent directly to the judge, as well as any submissions to the Court
that do not comply with these instructions, may be returned to Plaintiff without being filed.
12C49 Archie Brown (N-21714) vs. Dr. Sajjad, et al.
Page 2 of 2
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?