Sweet v. Doe et al

Filing 1

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER severing case. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 1/16/2018. (jsm2) [Transferred from Illinois Southern on 1/17/2018.]

Case 3:17-cv-01363-DRH Document 8 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #78

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DEREK I. SWEET,
#K98426,
Plaintiff,
DRH

vs.

Case No. 17-CV-1363-

PARTHA SARATHI GHOSH,
DR. JOHN TROST,
WEXFORD HEALTH SERVICES, INC.,
LATANYA WILLIAMS,
SHAWN BASS,
M. MOLDENHAUER,
JOHN/JANE DOE 1,
JOHN DOE 1,
JOHN DOE 2,
JOHN DOE 3,
JOHN DOE 4,
JOHN DOE 5,
JOHN DOE 6,
JOHN DOE 7,
JOHN DOE 8,
JOHN DOE 9, and
C/O SCHULTZ,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
I. OVERVIEW
Plaintiff Derek I. Sweet, an inmate currently housed at Stateville
Correctional Center (“Stateville”), filed this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiff brings three sets of claims relating to constitutional violations that

1

Case 3:17-cv-01363-DRH Document 8 Filed 01/16/18 Page 2 of 18 Page ID #79

allegedly occurred at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”) and Stateville over a
10 year period. The first set of claims allegedly occurred at Menard from October
1, 2006 to March 11, 2007 (“2006/2007 Menard Claims”).

During this time,

Plaintiff claims he was subjected to excessive force, resulting in a serious injury to
his left arm/elbow. According to the Complaint, Plaintiff was also denied medical
care for this injury. On March 11, 2007, Plaintiff was transferred to Stateville,
which leads to Plaintiff’s second set of claims (“Stateville Claims”).

Plaintiff

contends that while he was housed at Stateville, various Stateville officials
exhibited deliberate indifference to his left arm/elbow injury and/or retaliated
against him for filing grievances pertaining to the same. Plaintiff was returned to
Menard in March 2010, leading to Plaintiff’s third set of claims. Plaintiff generally
alleges that after returning to Menard in March 2010, unspecified officials (usually
generic groups such as “staff”) denied him necessary medical care in connection
with his left arm/elbow injury.

The only allegations associated with specific

defendants, however, are directed at a physician and physician’s assistant who
were allegedly deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s left arm/elbow injury in 2017.
Accordingly, the Court refers to the third set of claims as the “2017 Menard
Claims.”
Plaintiff was transferred back to Stateville on November 21, 2017, and is
presently incarcerated there.

Plaintiff does not assert any additional claims

against any specific official at Stateville following his most recent transfer.
However, he does allege that his chronic left arm/elbow pain continues and that he

2

Case 3:17-cv-01363-DRH Document 8 Filed 01/16/18 Page 3 of 18 Page ID #80

is still in need of medical care. (Doc. 1, pp. 25—26). Plaintiff seeks monetary
damages and injunctive relief. (Doc. 1, p. 28). Plaintiff’s request for injunctive
relief includes a request to be seen by an outside specialist. Id. The body of the
Complaint also includes additional requests for surgical intervention and other
specific medical care. (Doc. 1, p. 25).
In connection with his claims, Plaintiff names the following Defendants:
2006-2007 Menard Claims
1. John/Jane Doe – 1 2006/2007 Medical Director, Menard CC;
2. John Doe – 1 C/O Menard CC);
3. John Doe – 2 C/O Menard CC);
4. John Doe – 3 Lieutenant, C/O, Menard CC);
5. John Doe – 4 Sargent, C/O Menard CC);
6. John Doe – 6 C/O Menard CC also known as Big E/East House Gallery
Officer; 1
7. John Doe – 7 Lieutenant, C/O, Menard CC; 2 and
8. John Doe – 8 Sargent, C/O Menard CC. 3
Stateville Claims
1. John Doe – 10 Lieutenant, C/O, Stateville CC; 4

1

Plaintiff does not include a John Doe 5 in his list of defendants. The list of defendants includes a
“John Doe # 6 (Big E).” (Doc. 1, p. 4). The body of the Complaint describes John Doe # 6 as
being the East House Gallery Officer or “John Doe EH-6.” (Doc. 1, pp. 10-12). To facilitate the
orderly progress of this action going forward, the Clerk shall be directed to rename the John Doe
5 –C/O, Menard CC also known as Big E Defendant as follows: John Doe 6 C/O, Menard CC also
known as Big E/East House Gallery Officer. See FED. R. CIV. P. 21 (“the court may at any time, on
just terms, add or drop a party”).
2

To facilitate the orderly progress of this action going forward, the Clerk shall be directed to
rename the John Doe 6 – Lieutenant, C/O, Menard CC Defendant as follows: John Doe – 7
Lieutenant, C/O, Menard CC. See FED. R. CIV. P. 21 (“the court may at any time, on just terms,
add or drop a party”).
3

To facilitate the orderly progress of this action going forward, the Clerk shall be directed to
rename the John Doe 7 – Sargent, C/O, Menard CC Defendant as follows: John Doe – 8 Sargent,
C/O, Menard CC. See FED. R. CIV. P. 21 (“the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a
party”).
4

To facilitate the orderly progress of this action going forward, the Clerk shall be directed to
rename the John Doe 8 – Lieutenant, C/O, Stateville CC Defendant as follows: John Doe – 10

3

Case 3:17-cv-01363-DRH Document 8 Filed 01/16/18 Page 4 of 18 Page ID #81

2. John Doe – 9 Sargent, C/O Stateville CC;
3. C/O Schultz – Stateville CC; and
4. Latanya Williams – Stateville Physician Assistant;
5. Shawn Bass – X House Counselor, Placement Officer, Stateville CC;
6. Partha Sarathi Ghosh – Stateville Medical Director
2010-2017 Menard Claims
1. Dr. John Trost – Menard Medical Director and
2. M. Moldenhauer – Dr., Physician Assistant, Wexford Medical Services,
Inc.
Wexford
Wexford is identified as a defendant in Plaintiff’s list of defendants.
However, the body of the Complaint does not include any allegations directed
against Wexford. A plaintiff “cannot state a claim against a defendant [merely] by
including the defendant's name in the caption” of the complaint. See Potter v.

Clark, 497 F.2d 1206, 1207 (7th Cir. 1974); Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395, 1401
and n. 8 (7th Cir. 1994) (“Where a complaint alleges no specific act or conduct on
the part of the defendant and the complaint is silent as to the defendant except for
his name appearing in the caption, the complaint is properly dismissed.”).
Accordingly, Wexford shall be dismissed from this action without prejudice for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
II. PRELIMINARY REVIEW AND SEVERANCE
The Complaint is now before the Court for a preliminary review pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under § 1915A, the Court is required to screen prisoner
complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
Lieutenant, C/O, Stateville CC. See FED. R. CIV. P. 21 (“the court may at any time, on just terms,

add or drop a party”).

4

Case 3:17-cv-01363-DRH Document 8 Filed 01/16/18 Page 5 of 18 Page ID #82

Court must dismiss any portion of the complaint that is legally frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks for
money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
The Complaint is also subject to severance by this Court. The Court retains
authority to sever unrelated claims against different defendants into one or more
additional lawsuits for which Plaintiff will be assessed a filing fee. See George v.

Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).

In George, the Seventh Circuit

emphasized that the practice of severance is important, “not only to prevent the
sort of morass” produced by multi-claim, multi-defendant suits “but also to
ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees” under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act. Id. The Seventh Circuit strongly encourages district courts to use
severance when faced with an omnibus or scattershot complaint,

Owens v.

Evans, -- F.3d --, 2017 WL 6728884, *1 (7th Cir. Dec. 28, 2017), and discourages
courts from allowing a prisoner “to flout the rules for joining claims and
defendants, see FED. R. CIV. P. 18, 20, or to circumvent the Prison Litigation
Reform Act's fee requirements by combining multiple lawsuits into a single
complaint.”

Owens v. Godinez, 860 F.3d 434, 436 (7th Cir. 2017).

In a

misjoinder situation, severance may occur before preliminary review, allowing the
district court to create multiple suits, which can then be separately screened.

Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2012).

5

Case 3:17-cv-01363-DRH Document 8 Filed 01/16/18 Page 6 of 18 Page ID #83

III. THE COMPLAINT
Preliminary Matter
Plaintiff directs a number of allegations against individuals not named in
the case caption or list of defendants (e.g., various Jane Does, warden, John Doe
16…) and/or improper groups of defendants (e.g., Stateville Staff, Orange Crush,
Medical Staff, F-House Staff…).

To the extent that Plaintiff intended to assert

claims against these individuals and/or groups of individuals, those claims are
dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. See FED. R. CIV. P. 10(a) (noting that the title of the complaint “must
name all the parties”); Myles v. United States, 416 F.3d 551, 551–52 (7th
Cir.2005) (to be properly considered a party a defendant must be “specif[ied] in
the caption”); Jenkins v. Wisconsin Resource Ctr., No. 09–cv–323–bbc, 2009 WL
1797849, at *1 (W.D. Wis. June 24, 2009) (a group of people cannot be sued;
each defendant must be an individual or legal entity that may accept service of a
complaint).
Additionally, a number of Plaintiff’s allegations are not associated with any
identifiable individual (known or unknown).

For instance, Plaintiff generally

alleges that, when he was returned to Menard in 2010, he was left in handcuffs for
an excessive amount of time, further injuring his left arm/elbow (Plaintiff makes
similar allegations pertaining to his most recent transfer to Stateville in 2017).
Claims that are not associated with any particular defendant fail to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted and should be considered dismissed without

6

Case 3:17-cv-01363-DRH Document 8 Filed 01/16/18 Page 7 of 18 Page ID #84

prejudice.

See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct.

1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
2006/2007 Menard Claims
Plaintiff alleges that, on October 1, 2006, he was the victim of excessive
force. (Doc. 1, pp. 8-9). According to the Complaint, Plaintiff was involved in an
altercation with another inmate.

(Doc. 1, p. 8).

Several correctional officers

subdued Plaintiff and sprayed him twice with pepper spray. Id. Plaintiff alleges
that while he was in compliance and lying on his stomach (“spread eagle style”),
John Doe 1, a correctional officer, drove his knees into Plaintiff’s shoulders,
leaving Plaintiff’s head between his legs. Id. John Doe 2, a correctional officer,
then assisted John Doe 1 handcuff Plaintiff behind his back. Id. After Plaintiff
was handcuffed, John Doe 2 kicked him in the left side of his face, near his ear.

Id. John Doe 2 then stomped and stood on Plaintiff’s left arm/elbow. (Doc. 1, p.
9). Plaintiff screamed in pain. Id. John Doe 2 then rocked back and forth while
standing on Plaintiff’s left arm/elbow. Id. John Doe 2 did this four or five times.

Id. At that point, Plaintiff lost consciousness from the pain. Id.
As a result of the excessive force incident, Plaintiff’s left arm and elbow
were severely injured. (Doc. 1, p. 9). Plaintiff did not receive immediate medical
care for his injury. Id. Instead, Plaintiff was escorted to segregation, where he
remained for 90 days. (Doc. 1, pp. 9-10).

While Plaintiff was in segregation,

John Doe 3, a lieutenant in the N2 cell house, and John Doe 4, a sergeant in the
N2 cell house, denied Plaintiff’s requests for medical care.

7

(Doc. 1, p. 9).

Case 3:17-cv-01363-DRH Document 8 Filed 01/16/18 Page 8 of 18 Page ID #85

Additionally, grievances sent to John/Jane Doe 1 (the Medical Director at Menard
in 2006/2007) went unanswered.
Plaintiff claims his arm was reinjured during a second excessive force
incident on February 7, 2007.

According to the Complaint, John Doe 6

intentionally reinjured Plaintiff’s left arm while handcuffing him. (Doc. 1, pp. 1012).

Plaintiff claims that John Doe 6, John Doe 7, and John Doe 8 refused

Plaintiff’s requests for medical attention in connection with this incident. (Doc. 1,
p. 12). Additionally, they told Plaintiff to “shut the fuck up.” Id.
Plaintiff filed a grievance pertaining to this incident and, three days later,
his cell was tossed. Id. Plaintiff asked John Doe 6 if this was an act of retaliation
for the grievance. Id. John Doe 6 responded by telling Plaintiff’s cellmate their
cell had been searched because of Plaintiff and suggested that Plaintiff’s cellmate
should assault Plaintiff. Id.
Plaintiff was transferred to Stateville on March 11, 2007. (Doc. 1, p. 13).
Stateville Claims
Plaintiff claims that, between 2007 and 2010, he continued to suffer from a
left arm/elbow injury. (Doc. 1, p. 13). According to the Complaint, upon arrival
at Stateville, his left arm/elbow was swollen and discolored, with “extreme
bruising and chronic nonstop throbbing.” Id. He claims the chronic pain and
swelling has interfered with his everyday life. (Doc. 1, pp. 13-14).
When Plaintiff first arrived at Stateville he was placed in X-house. (Doc. 1,
p. 14). Plaintiff complained about his left arm/elbow injury to several “Stateville

8

Case 3:17-cv-01363-DRH Document 8 Filed 01/16/18 Page 9 of 18 Page ID #86

staff in X-house.” Id. Specifically, Plaintiff showed John Doe 9 his left arm/elbow
and requested medical attention. Id. Additionally, a number of unknown officers
observed his arm. Id. The X-house officials that observed Plaintiff’s injury were
in “shock.” Id. John Doe 10 5 ordered other correctional officers to take Plaintiff
to HCU. (Doc. 1, p. 15).
La Tanya Williams, a physician’s assistant, and a number of individuals
identified as Jane Does (who are not identified as defendants in Plaintiff’s caption
or list of defendants) subsequently came to Plaintiff’s cell and commented on the
seriousness of his injury.

(Doc. 1, pp. 14-15).

They immediately escorted

Plaintiff to the HCU. (Doc. 1, p. 15). Plaintiff’s arm was examined and he was
returned to his cell. Id.
A few days later, Plaintiff was returned to the HCU at the request of
Williams.

Id.

Williams and an unidentified member of the medical staff

questioned Plaintiff. Plaintiff indicated he had been the victim of excessive force
at Menard. Id. Williams said she would be fired in retaliation if she reported
Plaintiff’s injuries in writing. (Doc. 1, p. 16). Plaintiff did not receive x-rays, pain
medication, or, in his opinion, appropriate emergency treatment for his injury.

Id.
Plaintiff alleges he communicated with Bass, a grievance counselor, both in
person and in writing, regarding his need for medical treatment. (Doc. 1, pp. 1617). All of Plaintiff’s requests were ignored and his grievances were unanswered.
5

Plaintiff’s list of Defendants includes an individual identified as John Doe 10 – Lieutenant, C/O,
Stateville CC. (Doc. 1, p. 5, (Doc. 1, p. 5). The body of the Complaint references Jane Doe 10 who
is described as a Lieutenant at Stateville. (Doc. 1, p. 15).

9

Case 3:17-cv-01363-DRH Document 8 Filed 01/16/18 Page 10 of 18 Page ID #87

Id.

Plaintiff also directed grievances to Ghosh, Stateville’s Medical Director,

regarding his need for medical treatment. (Doc. 1, p. 19). However, Plaintiff’s
grievances were ignored. Id.
After filing a number of grievances, Plaintiff’s cell was searched. (Doc. 1, p.
17). Plaintiff asked Schultz, a correctional officer, for a “shake-down slip.” Id.
Schultz told Plaintiff to “go to hell.” (Doc. 1, p. 18). Plaintiff also alleges that after
he filed emergency grievances seeking medical treatment, Schultz retaliated by
“tossing” his cell. Id.
Plaintiff was transferred back to Menard in March 2010. (Doc. 1, p. 19).
He remained at Menard from March 2010 through November 21, 2017. (Doc. 1,
pp. 19-25).

On November 21, 2017, Plaintiff returned to Stateville and is

presently incarcerated there.

Plaintiff does not direct additional allegations

against any specific defendant following his most recent transfer. (Doc. 1, pp. 2526). However, he alleges that he continues to suffer from chronic left arm/elbow
pain and swelling. He also seeks injunctive relief in the form of medical care.
(Doc. 1, pp. 25-28).
2017 Menard Claims
As noted above, Plaintiff returned to Menard in March 2010 and remained
there until November 21, 2017. (Doc. 1, pp. 19-25). When Plaintiff arrived at
Menard, he was handcuffed from 3:00 am to 6:00 pm. (Doc. 1, p. 19). During
this time, Plaintiff suffered chronic pain, swelling, and numbness in his left
arm/elbow. Id. Plaintiff does not associate these allegations with any particular

10

Case 3:17-cv-01363-DRH Document 8 Filed 01/16/18 Page 11 of 18 Page ID #88

defendant.
Between 2010 and 2017, Plaintiff continued to experience chronic pain,
swelling, numbness, and “bone on bone grinding” in his left arm/elbow. (Doc. 1,
p. 20). The injury interfered with his daily life. Id. At times, the pain was so
severe he has passed out in his cell. Id. Most of Plaintiff’s claims pertaining to
this time period are generalized and not associated with any specific individual.
However, the Complaint does specifically reference Trost, Menard’s Medical
Director and a physician, and Moldenhauer, a physician’s assistant. The allegedly
wrongful conduct attributed to these individuals occurred in 2017. That conduct
and other allegations pertaining to that time period are summarized below.
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff filed numerous grievances regarding
his need for medical attention, some of which were directed to Trost, 6 but his
complaints were ignored. (Doc. 1, pp. 19-20). Plaintiff specifically discusses a
grievance he submitted on February 9, 2017.

(Doc. 1, p. 20).

The grievance

provided “full detail” regarding his medical issues (chronic pain in his left
arm/elbow and left ear). Id. He also “directed kites to Menard’s medical staff in
the Healthcare Unit and addressed to said supervisor on his issues.” Id. 7
On February 12, 2017, Plaintiff was issued a pass for sick call and was
examined by an unidentified medical technician (not a defendant in this action).
6

Plaintiff claims he submitted grievances to “Menard’s Director.” (Doc. 1, p. 19). This allegation
appears to be directed at John Trost, a defendant identified by Plaintiff as Menard’s Medical
Director. (Doc. 1, p. 2). The Complaint suggests that Trost was not the Medical Director in
2006/2007 – Plaintiff has a designated a separate unknown party as “Jane/John Doe 1 Medical
Director 2006-2007, Menard CC.”
7

Plaintiff has attached several grievances to his Complaint. (Doc. 1, pp. 39-40, 57-63).

11

Case 3:17-cv-01363-DRH Document 8 Filed 01/16/18 Page 12 of 18 Page ID #89

(Doc. 1, p. 21). This individual prescribed Tylenol and returned Plaintiff to the
Healthcare doctor. Id.
On February 17, 2017, Plaintiff was examined by Trost. Id. Trost “didn’t
want to hear about what happened.” Id. He ordered an x-ray and prescribed
Ibuprofen.

Id.

Plaintiff’s x-ray was scheduled for February 22, 2017.

Id.

However, this appointment was cancelled without explanation. Id. Plaintiff’s arm
was finally x-rayed on February 28, 2017. Id. He was supposed to review his
results with Trost on March 10, 2017. Id. However, this appointment was also
cancelled without explanation. 8 Id.
On March 24, 2017 through March 26, 2017,9 Plaintiff’s elbow was popping
and cracking. Id. It was also severely swollen and tender to the touch. Id. He
experienced extreme pain and his left hand was numb for several days. (Doc. 1,
p. 22). Because of his condition, Plaintiff had difficulty with daily activities. Id.
That weekend, Plaintiff told a gallery officer about his left arm/elbow and
the need for medical treatment. Id. The officer took Plaintiff’s name, number,
and cell location. Id. He relayed the information to the sergeant and lieutenant
on duty, however, nothing was done.

Id.

technician his injured arm, to no avail. Id.

Plaintiff also showed a medical
None of these individuals are

identified as defendants in the Complaint.

8

An exhibit attached to the Complaint discloses the following with regard to the x-ray: “There is
osteoarthritis of the elbow joint with a small elbow joint effusion. No definite evidence of an acute
bony fracture is seen on this examination.” (Doc. 1, p. 35).

99

Plaintiff submitted a grievance directed to the HCU on March 26, 2017. (Doc. 1, p. 37). He
indicates that he is experiencing severe pain, swelling, and popping in his left arm/elbow. Id. He
also states that the doctor diagnosed it as arthritis but insists the “issue is beyond arthritis.” Id.

12

Case 3:17-cv-01363-DRH Document 8 Filed 01/16/18 Page 13 of 18 Page ID #90

On the morning of March 26, 2017, Plaintiff’s arm was extremely painful.
(Doc. 1, p. 23). Plaintiff did not receive any medical treatment and did not receive
a pass to the HCU. Id. On the same day, Plaintiff submitted grievances regarding
(1) not receiving his x-ray results and (2) the continued denial of medical care. Id.
On March 28, 2017, Plaintiff was given a “verbal sick call announcement”
and was seen by a medical technician. Id. Plaintiff does not indicate what, if any,
treatment he received on this date.
On April 3, 2017, Plaintiff received a medical pass to see Moldenhauer. Id.
The appointment was cancelled without explanation.

Id.

Plaintiff received

another pass to see Moldenhauer on April 7, 2017. (Doc. 1, p. 24). This time,
the appointment was not cancelled. Id. Plaintiff attempted to tell Moldenhauer
about his medical issue, but Moldenhauer cut him off. Id. Moldenhauer also
disregarded Plaintiff’s request to see an outside specialist and refused to give
Plaintiff an ice pack or elbow soaks. Id. Moldenhauer did not examine Plaintiff’s
arm or ask him to do muscle tests. Id.
IV. DIVISION OF COUNTS
Based on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to
divide the pro se action into the following counts. The parties and the Court will
use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise
directed by a judicial officer of this Court. The designation of these counts does
not constitute an opinion regarding their merit.

Any other claim that is

mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed in this Order is dismissed without

13

Case 3:17-cv-01363-DRH Document 8 Filed 01/16/18 Page 14 of 18 Page ID #91

prejudice as inadequately pled under the Twombly pleading standard.
2006/2007 Menard Claims
Count 1 –

On October 1, 2006, John Doe 2 subjected Plaintiff to
excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Count 2 –

On October 1, 2006, John Doe 1 failed to intervene in the
alleged excessive force (occurring on October 1, 2006) in
violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Count 3 –

John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, and
John/Jane Doe 1 showed deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s
serious medical needs resulting from the alleged excessive
force (occurring on October 1, 2006) in violation of the Eighth
Amendment.

Count 4 –

On February 7, 2007, John Doe 6 subjected Plaintiff to
excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Count 5 –

John Doe 6, John Doe 7, and John Doe 8 showed deliberate
indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs resulting from
the alleged excessive force (occurring on February 7, 2007).

Count 6 –

John Doe 6 retaliated against Plaintiff for filing a grievance
regarding the alleged use of excessive force (occurring on
February 7, 2007) by tossing his cell and encouraging
Plaintiff’s cellmate to assault him.

Stateville Claims
Count 7 –

John Doe 9, John Doe 10, Williams, Bass, and Ghosh showed
deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical condition
(injury to left arm/elbow and associated chronic pain) in
violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Count 8 –

Schultz retaliated against Plaintiff for filing grievances by
“tossing” his cell in violation of the First Amendment.

2017 Menard Claims
Count 9 –

In

2017,

Trost

and

14

Moldenhauer

exhibited

deliberate

Case 3:17-cv-01363-DRH Document 8 Filed 01/16/18 Page 15 of 18 Page ID #92

indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical condition (injury to
left arm/elbow and associated chronic pain) in violation of the
Eighth Amendment.
V. IMPROPER JOINDER AND SEVERANCE
Plaintiff has brought three distinct sets of claims: (1) 2006/2007 Menard
Claims (Counts 1 through 6); (2) Stateville Claims (Counts 7 through 8, which
include a request for injunctive relief); and (3) 2017 Menard Claims (Count 9).
Although many of the claims involve officials who were allegedly deliberately
indifferent to the same medical condition (Plaintiff’s arm injury), the three sets of
claims are not properly joined under Rules 18 and 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18, 20; Owens v. Evans, -- F.3d --, 2017 WL

6728884, *1 (7th Cir. Dec. 28, 2017). The claims involve different defendants
who allegedly committed independent acts of deliberate indifference and/or
retaliation, at two different prisons, over a ten year period.
capable of resolution independently.

These claims are

Accordingly, the Court will exercise its

authority under Rule 21 and sever the improperly joined claims.
The Court shall sever the Stateville claims (Counts 7 and 8, which include a
request for injunctive relief) into a separate action and 2017 Menard claims
(Count 9) into another action. These two separate actions, for Counts 7 and 8 and
Count 9, will have newly assigned case numbers and shall be assessed filing fees.
The severed cases shall undergo preliminary review pursuant to § 1915A after the
new case numbers and judge assignments have been made.
Counts 1 through 6, which appear, at least tenuously, to be transactionally

15

Case 3:17-cv-01363-DRH Document 8 Filed 01/16/18 Page 16 of 18 Page ID #93

related, shall remain in this action. These Counts shall receive preliminary review
in a separate order, filed contemporaneously herewith.
VI. DISPOSITION
Wexford
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that WEXFORD HEALTH SERVICES, INC. is
DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate this entity as a
party in CM/ECF.
Renaming Certain John Doe Defendants
The numbering assigned to certain John Doe Defendants in CM/ECF does
not reflect the numbering utilized by Plaintiff in his list of defendants and in the
body of the Complaint.

Accordingly, to facilitate the orderly progress of this

action going forward, the Clerk is DIRECTED to rename certain John Doe
Defendants:
The Clerk shall rename the John Doe 5 –C/O, Menard CC also known as
Big E Defendant as follows: John Doe 6 C/O, Menard CC also known as Big
E/East House Gallery Officer.
The Clerk shall rename the John Doe 6 – Lieutenant, C/O, Menard CC
Defendant as follows: John Doe – 7 Lieutenant, C/O, Menard CC.
The Clerk shall rename the John Doe 7 – Sargent, C/O, Menard CC
Defendant as follows: John Doe – 8 Sargent, C/O, Menard CC.
The Clerk shall rename the John Doe 8 – Lieutenant, C/O, Stateville CC
Defendant as follows: John Doe – 10 Lieutenant, C/O, Stateville CC.

16

Case 3:17-cv-01363-DRH Document 8 Filed 01/16/18 Page 17 of 18 Page ID #94

Severance
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that COUNTS 7 and 8, which includes
Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief(“Stateville Claims”), are SEVERED into a
new case against JOHN DOE 9, JOHN DOE 10, WILLIAMS, BASS, GHOSH,
and SCHULTZ.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that COUNT 9 (“2017 Menard Claims”) are
SEVERED into a new case against TROST and MOLDENHAUER.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the only claims remaining in this
action, are COUNTS 1 through 6 (“2006/2007 Menard Claims”).
Newly Severed Cases
The claims in the newly severed cases: (1) Stateville Claims, Counts 7 and
8, which include Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief, and (2) 2017 Menard
Claims, Count 9 shall be subject to screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A after
the new case number and judge assignment is made. In the new case, the Clerk is
DIRECTED to file the following documents:
This Memorandum and Order;
The Complaint (Doc. 1);
Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2); and
Plaintiff’s Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 3).
Plaintiff will be responsible for an additional $350 filing fee in the newly
severed cases. 10

No service shall be ordered in the severed cases until the §

1915A review is completed.

10

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914, effective May 1, 2013, an additional $50.00 administrative fee is
also to be assessed in all civil actions, unless pauper status is granted.

17

Case 3:17-cv-01363-DRH Document 8 Filed 01/16/18 Page 18 of 18 Page ID #95

The newly severed cases shall be captioned as follows:
Stateville Claims, Counts 7 and 8
DEREK I. SWEET, Plaintiff vs. JOHN DOE 9 Sargent, C/O, Stateville CC,
JOHN DOE 10 Lieutenant, C/O, Stateville CC, PARTHA SARATHIS
GHOSH Stateville Medical Director, LATANYA WILLIAMS Stateville
Physician Assistant, SHAWN BASS X House Counselor, Placement Officer,
Stateville CC, and C/O SCHULTZ Stateville CC, Defendants.
2017 Menard Claims, Count 9
DEREK I. SWEET, Plaintiff vs. DR. JOHN TROST Menard Medical
Director and M. MOLDENHAUER Dr., Physician Assistant, Wexford
Medical Services, Inc., Defendants.
Merits Review of 2006/2007 Menard Claims - Counts 1 -6
These Counts shall receive preliminary review in a separate order, filed
contemporaneously herewith.

Judge Herndon
2018.01.16
11:54:25 -06'00'

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court

18