Taylor v. Illinois Department of Corrections et al

Filing 66

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 49 Motion to Amend/Correct; MOOTING 59 Motion to Dismiss; Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 10/14/15. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
MARC HODGE, WEXFORD HEALTH)
SOURCES, INC., and DR. HOHENBERRY, )
)
)
Defendants.
DOUGLAS W. TAYLOR,

Case No. 3:14-cv-122-NJR-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court is the Motion to Amend filed by Plaintiff on July 29, 2015
(Doc. 49) and the Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss and Stay filed by Plaintiff on September 21, 2015
(Doc. 59). The Motion to Amend is GRANTED IN PART and the Motion to Voluntarily
Dismiss is MOOT.
In an Order dated June 9, 2015, Plaintiff was permitted to proceed on two Counts:1
Count 1: Deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against Defendant Dr.
Hohenberry for failing to treat Plaintiff’s eye condition from June 7, 2012, to the
present.
Count 3: Deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against Wexford Health
Sources, Inc., and the IDOC for maintaining unconstitutional practices of policies
with respect to staffing the optometrist position and procedures for requesting
medical care.
Plaintiff now seeks to amend his Complaint in order to add another Defendant, Dr. John Coe, and
to dismiss Defendant Marc Hodge. No Defendant has failed a response to the Motion to Amend.
Plaintiff’s proposed Second Amended Complaint asserts the same factual claims as his
Amended Complaint: he alleges that he was denied care for his eyes since June 7, 2012 and that the
1

Count 2 was an Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claim that was dismissed
on February 26, 2014 (Doc. 5).
Page 1 of 4

optometrist position at the Lawrence Correctional Center is woefully inadequate. Plaintiff further
alleges the Dr. John Coe failed to adequately treat his complaints of pain and otherwise
disregarded his complaints. First he alleges that he began sending in requests for care on June 7,
2012. When he did see Dr. Coe on June 4, 2013, he referred Plaintiff to an optometrist.

He saw

Dr. Coe again on September 19, 2013, again after submitting numerous slips for healthcare, and
informed him of his decreasing vision and increasing pain. Plaintiff states that Dr. Coe merely
notated that he was still waiting to see the optometrist and provided no meaningful relief. Despite
numerous intervening requests for healthcare, he saw Dr. Coe again on February 20, 2014 who did
not examine him and only provided ineffective medication.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that “a party may amend its pleading only
with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave
when justice so requires.” Plaintiff sets forth four counts that appear to mix the allegations
against each Defendant. Plaintiff also has not set forth the above Counts 1 and 3 as such. In
order to clarify the claims, the Court finds that Plaintiff is alleging the following Counts:
Count 1: Deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against Defendant Dr.
Hohenberry for failing to treat Plaintiff’s eye condition from June 7, 2012, to the
present.
Count 3: Deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against Wexford Health
Sources, Inc., for maintaining unconstitutional practices of policies with respect to
staffing the optometrist position and procedures for requesting medical care.
Count 4: Deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against Defendant Dr.
John Coe for failing to treat Plaintiff’s eye condition from June 7, 2012, to the
present.
Count 5: Failure to intervene against Defendant Dr. John Coe for failing to prevent
harm related to his eye condition caused by Dr. Hohenberry’s deliberate
indifference.

Page 2 of 4

To the extent that Plaintiff is alleging supervisory liability or any other claim previously
dismissed (with prejudice), such claims shall not proceed in this matter. To the extent that
Plaintiff purports to assert claims on behalf of other inmates, such claims shall not proceed in this
matter. To the extent that Plaintiff is alleging a conspiracy claim, such a claim will not proceed in
this matter. Besides setting forth the elements of a conspiracy, Plaintiff has not provided any
factual detail that would render such a claim plausible. The complaint must contain “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2).
To state a cognizable claim, the complaint must provide enough detail to give defendants fair
notice of the nature of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests and to show that relief is
plausible. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554-56 (2007). Conclusory statements
or the mere recitation of the elements of the cause of action are insufficient. Id. The pleading
must contain factual allegations that “raise the right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at
555. Plaintiff’s conspiracy claim is just such a speculative claim that shall not proceed in this
matter.
In light of the foregoing, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file Plaintiff’s Second
Amended Complaint forthwith. By operation of the Second Amended Complaint, Defendant
Marc Hodge is dismissed. The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendant DR. JOHN COE: (1)
Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summon) and (2) Form 6 (Waiver
of Service of Summons). The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail these forms, a copy of the Second
Amended Complaint, and this Order to Defendant’s places of employment as identified by
Plaintiff. If Defendant fails to sign and return the Waiver of Service of Summons (Form 6) to the
Clerk within 30 days from the date the forms were sent, the Clerk shall take appropriate steps to
effect formal service on Defendant, and the Court will require Defendant to pay the full costs of

Page 3 of 4

formal service, to the extent authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Amend filed by Plaintiff on July 29, 2015 (Doc.
49) is GRANTED IN PART and the Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss and Stay filed by Plaintiff on
September 21, 2015 (Doc. 59) is MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 14, 2015

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 4 of 4