Clark v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. et al

Filing 5

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 1/9/2017. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RAMON CLARK,
# K-03716
Plaintiff,
vs.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.,
DR. SHAH,
DR. SANTOS,
DR. GARCIA,
LISA KREBS,
DEBORAH S. ZELASKO,
ROBERT MUELLER,
CHRISTINE BROWN,
SHERRY BENTON,
and JOHN DOE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16−cv–01266−MJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, Chief District Judge:
Plaintiff Ramon Clark, an inmate who is currently in the custody of the Illinois
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
for

deprivations

of

his

constitutional

rights

at

Pinckneyville

Correctional

Center

(“Pinckneyville”) and Centralia Correctional Center (“Centralia”). (Doc. 1). In the Complaint,
Plaintiff claims that he was denied adequate medical care for a testicular mass at both facilities.
His condition was neither properly diagnosed nor treated. (Doc. 1, pp. 3-11). As a result, he
suffered from unnecessary pain. Plaintiff now sues Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (“Wexford”),
his prison doctors (Shah, Santos, Garcia, and Doe), and several supervisory officials (Mueller,
Krebs, Zelasko, Brown, and Benton) for violations of his rights under the Eighth Amendment.

1

Id. Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, and injunctive relief against them.
(Doc. 1, pp. 10-11).
Merits Review Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
The Complaint is subject to preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Under

§ 1915A, the Court is required to promptly screen prisoner complaints to filter out
nonmeritorious claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court is required to 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). Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject to further review under this standard.
Complaint
Plaintiff alleges that he was denied proper medical treatment for a lump in his left testicle
at Pinckneyville and Centralia in 2015-16. (Doc. 1, pp. 3-11). Medical providers at both
facilities recommended an ultrasound. Id. However, Wexford would not approve the test. Id.
Consequently, the mass in Plaintiff’s left testicle was never properly diagnosed or treated and
resulted in significant, persistent pain. Id.
1.

Pinckneyville
During his incarceration at Pinckneyville, Plaintiff developed a painful mass in his left

testicle. (Doc. 1, pp. 3-4). He notified medical staff about the condition and requested testing to
properly diagnose it. (Doc. 1, p. 3). Plaintiff wanted to rule out the possibility of cancer.
In response, Nurse Practitioner Angel Rector performed a manual examination and
confirmed the presence of a lump. Id. She recommended an ultrasound to properly diagnose his
condition. Id. Plaintiff waited “weeks” for the ultrasound before learning that Wexford would
not approve it. Id.

2

Without examining Plaintiff, an unidentified doctor (“John Doe”) scheduled him for a
follow-up appointment six months later. (Doc. 1, p. 3). Plaintiff met with the prison’s “crisis
team” and was scheduled for an earlier appointment with the same doctor. (Doc. 1, pp. 3-4).
Doctor Doe met with Plaintiff and, like the nurse practitioner, discovered a mass in his left
testicle during a manual examination.

Doctor Doe opined that the mass “might be

[e]pididymitis,” 1 but it was probably not testicular cancer. (Doc. 1, p. 4). Doctor Doe decided
that no treatment was necessary.

Id.

Plaintiff was instead scheduled for a follow-up

appointment six months later. Id.
Plaintiff filed an emergency grievance with Warden Jacqueline Lashbrook. (Doc. 1, p.
4). In the grievance, he described the denial of medical care for his condition in detail. The
warden “ordered that the grievance be expedited.” Id. However, it was eventually denied by an
unidentified grievance officer, Warden Lashbrook, and Administrative Review Board (“ARB”)
Member Sherry Benton. (Doc. 1, pp. 3-4). Before attending his follow-up appointment at
Pinckneyville, Plaintiff transferred to Centralia on May 4, 2016. Id.
2.

Centralia
Within days of his arrival at the prison, he notified medical staff about his testicular mass.

(Doc. 1, p. 4). Doctor Shah examined Plaintiff on May 8, 2016. Id. After performing still
another manual examination, the doctor confirmed the presence of a mass in Plaintiff’s left
testicle. (Doc. 1, pp. 4-5). Doctor Shah then stated, “You were recently seen by the doctor at
Pinckneyville and he recommended that you be examined in six months so get out of here.”
(Doc. 1, p. 5). Doctor Shah also denied Plaintiff’s request for pain medication. Id.

1

Epididymitis is swelling of the tube, known as the epididymis, connecting the testicle with the vas
deferens. The most common cause of the condition is a bacterial infection that spreads from the urethra,
prostate, or bladder. (Doc. 1-1, p. 1). See also https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001279.htm.

3

Plaintiff filed an emergency grievance with Warden Mueller the same day. (Doc. 1, p. 5).
Warden Mueller ordered that the grievance be expedited. Id. After investigating the matter,
Grievance Officer Zelasko concluded that Plaintiff’s “medical concerns [we]re being addressed
by the facility’s healthcare staff.” Id. The emergency grievance was denied on May 19, 2016,
by Zelasko and Mueller. Id.
Plaintiff informed Centralia’s medical staff that the mass was causing pain that radiated
from his left testicle through his left leg. (Doc. 1, p. 5). He was scheduled to meet with Doctor
Santos, who confirmed the presence of a mass in Plaintiff’s left testicle by performing a manual
examination. Id. The doctor agreed that the mass was likely epididymitis and required no
treatment. Id. When Plaintiff complained of tenderness and pain, Doctor Santos recommended
masturbation instead of pain medication. Id.
Plaintiff filed another emergency grievance with Warden Mueller on August 11, 2016.
(Doc. 1, p. 6). The warden again ordered that the grievance be expedited. Id. While the
grievance was being processed, Plaintiff informed medical staff that he was still experiencing
severe pain. Id. In response to this complaint, Doctor Garcia examined Plaintiff on August 17,
2016. Id. The doctor suspected an infection and prescribed Plaintiff Levofloxacin (500 mg), an
antibiotic used to treat a variety a bacterial infections.

Id.

He also ordered a follow-up

ultrasound, in the event the antibiotic proved to be ineffective. Id.
The antibiotic did nothing to stop Plaintiff’s pain, and he again met with Doctor Santos to
discuss his condition. When Plaintiff reported that the antibiotic was ineffective, the doctor said,
“I know it didn’t [work,] and I don’t know why he (Dr. Garcia) gave that to you.” (Doc. 1, p. 6).
Plaintiff explained that the size of the lump and associated pain fluctuate. Id. Doctor Santos

4

indicated that he was ordering an ultrasound because he did not think the condition was
epididymitis. Id.
In the meantime, Plaintiff’s second emergency grievance was denied by Mueller and
Zelasko on August 24, 2016. (Doc. 1, p. 7). They concluded that there was “[n]o need for an
outside referral at this time.” Id.
When Plaintiff met with Doctor Santos on September 20, 2016, he learned that Wexford
denied the doctor’s request for an ultrasound. Id. However, Doctor Santos assured Plaintiff that
he was under “close watch” and would be scheduled for another follow-up appointment with the
doctor in six months. Id. When Plaintiff asked Doctor Santos for pain medication, the doctor
refused to provide any and again recommended masturbation as an alternative to pain
medication. Id.
Days later, Plaintiff submitted offender request slips to Warden Mueller, Health Care
Administrator Krebs, and Assistant Warden Stephanie Waggoner. Id. Waggoner met with
Krebs and learned about Wexford’s decision to deny the ultrasound. Id. Krebs recommended
that Plaintiff “meet with the doctors and report changes or file a grievance.” Id. Based on his
past experience, Plaintiff knew that this would result in no additional medical treatment. Id.
Plaintiff nevertheless met with Doctor Santos again on October 6, 2016. (Doc. 1, p. 8).
Plaintiff informed the doctor of “complications.” Id. After performing still another manual
examination, Doctor Santos informed Plaintiff that he had no plans to do anything more, unless
Plaintiff’s left testicle became swollen or infected. Id.
Plaintiff continued to suffer from what he describes as “extreme levels of pain,
discomfort, [and] tenderness to the point that he cannot rub against nothing.” (Doc. 1, p. 8). The
pain causes sleeplessness and low energy levels. Id.

5

Plaintiff claims that the delay and/or denial of adequate medical treatment for his
testicular mass amounts to deliberate indifference, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, on the
part of Doctor Doe, Shah, Santos, and Garcia. (Doc. 1, p. 9). Wexford’s denial of three doctors’
requests for an ultrasound of Plaintiff’s left testicle likewise amounts to deliberate indifference to
a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 1, p. 8). Finally, Mueller,
Krebs, Zalesko, and Benton’s failure to intervene and ensure adequate medical care in response
to Plaintiff’s detailed grievances also violates his rights under the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 1,
p. 10). In connection with these claims, Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment and monetary
damages. (Doc. 1, pp. 10-11). He also seeks injunctive relief in the form of “adequate treatment
for his medical condition,” but he makes no request for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) or
preliminary injunction. (Doc. 1, p. 11).
Discussion
To facilitate the orderly management of future proceedings in this case, and in
accordance with the objectives of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(e) and 10(b), the Court
deems it appropriate to reorganize the claims in Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint into the following
counts:
Count 1 -

Plaintiff’s doctors (Doe, Shah, Santos, and Garcia) exhibited
deliberate indifference to his testicular mass in violation of the
Eighth Amendment, when they failed to properly diagnose and/or
treat his testicular mass and associated pain.

Count 2 -

Wexford exhibited deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s testicular
mass in violation of the Eighth Amendment, by repeatedly denying
his doctors’ requests for an ultrasound.

Count 3 -

The supervisory defendants (Mueller, Krebs, Zalesko, and Benton)
failed to ensure adequate medical treatment for Plaintiff’s testicular
mass in violation of the Eighth Amendment, in response to his
detailed grievances complaining about the denial of adequate
medical care for the mass and pain.
6

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 as to their merits.
Counts 1, 2, and 3 shall receive further review against those defendants who are named
above in connection with each claim and no other defendants. Deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs of prisoners may constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth
Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837
(1994); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2006) (per curiam).

To state an Eighth

Amendment claim, the plaintiff must show that he suffered from a serious medical need (an
objective standard) and that state officials acted with deliberate indifference to his medical need
(a subjective standard). Sherrod v. Lingle, 223 F.3d 605, 619 (7th Cir. 2000).
The allegations in the Complaint satisfy the objective component of this claim for
screening purposes. Plaintiff complains of a mass in his left testicle that resulted in persistent
and severe pain. The Seventh Circuit has recognized that testicular growths and pain may
constitute a serious medical need. See Hayes v. Snyder, 546 F.3d 516, 522 (7th Cir. 2008).
Further, “chronic and substantial pain” is indicative of a serious medical need. Gutierrez v.
Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1373 (7th Cir. 1997). The Complaint suggests that Plaintiff’s medical
need was serious under this standard.
The Complaint must also suggest that the defendants responded to Plaintiff’s serious
medical need with deliberate indifference. This requirement is satisfied where a plaintiff alleges
that a defendant’s responses were so plainly inappropriate as to permit the inference that the
defendants intentionally or recklessly disregarded his needs. Hayes, 546 F.3d at 524 (citations
omitted). However, Plaintiff is not required to show that his complaints were “literally ignored.”
7

Sherrod, 223 F.3d at 611. The allegations in the Complaint suggest that each of the defendants
may have responded with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s testicular mass and associated
complaints of pain. Accordingly, Count 1 is subject to further review against the doctors (Doe,
Shah, Santos, and Garcia), Count 2 is subject to further review against Wexford, and Count 3 is
subject to further review against the supervisory officials (Mueller, Krebs, Zalesko, and Benton).
Defendant Christine Brown is dismissed without prejudice from this action. Plaintiff
does not include any allegations against this defendant in his statement of claim. See Collins v.
Kibort, 143 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1998) (“A plaintiff cannot state a claim against a defendant
by including the defendant’s name in the caption.”). Therefore, he cannot proceed with any
claims against Brown.
Likewise, Plaintiff cannot proceed with any claims against Angel Rector, Jacqueline
Lashbrook, or Stephanie Waggoner. He does not name these individuals as defendants in this
action. When parties are not listed in the case caption, the Court will not treat them as parties to
the action. Any claims against them are considered dismissed without prejudice. 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”).

Accordingly, any claims against these individuals are

considered dismissed without prejudice.
Interim Relief
Plaintiff generally seeks injunctive relief, in the form of appropriate medical care and
treatment for his condition. (Doc. 1, p. 11). However, the Complaint lacks any request for
emergency relief, such as a TRO or preliminary injunction. If Plaintiff believes that more
immediate relief is necessary, he may file a separate motion seeking a TRO or a preliminary

8

injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He is free to do so at any
time during the pending action.
Identification of Doe Defendant
Plaintiff will be allowed to proceed with his Eighth Amendment claim against Doctor
John Doe, the unknown doctor who allegedly denied Plaintiff adequate medical care for his
testicular mass at Pinckneyville. While it is within the Court’s discretion to allow Plaintiff to
proceed against an unknown defendant, the use of fictitious names is generally frowned upon.
See K.F.P. v. Dane Cnty., 110 F.3d 516, 519 (7th Cir. 1997). This party cannot be served with
process or respond to the Complaint until he is identified. Therefore, Plaintiff will be required to
identify Doctor John Doe with specificity, in order to pursue his claim against this defendant.
Plaintiff may use the discovery process to identify this defendant. Rodriguez v. Plymouth
Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 832 (7th Cir. 2009).
The Warden of Pinckneyville shall be added as a defendant, in his or her official capacity
only, for the sole purpose of responding to discovery requests, formal or otherwise, aimed at
identifying this unknown party. Guidelines for discovery will be set by the United States
Magistrate Judge. Once the name of Doctor John Doe is discovered, Plaintiff shall file a motion
seeking substitution of this newly identified defendant in place of the generic designation for
Doctor John Doe in the case caption and throughout the Complaint.
Disposition
The Clerk is directed to ADD as a defendant in CM/ECF the WARDEN OF
PINCKNEYVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, in his or her official capacity only, and
this defendant shall be responsible for promptly responding to Plaintiff’s discovery aimed at
identifying Doctor John Doe with specificity.

9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant CHRISTINE BROWN is DISMISSED
without prejudice from this action because the Complaint fails to state a claim for relief against
this defendant.
IT IS ORDERED that COUNTS 1, 2, and 3 are subject to further review against those
defendants named in connection with each count. The claims are considered DISMISSED with
prejudice against all other defendants for failure to state a claim upon which relief may granted.
With respect to COUNTS 1, 2, and 3, the Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendants
WARDEN OF PINCKNEYVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER (official capacity only),
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., DOCTOR DOE (once identified), DOCTOR
SHAH, DOCTOR SANTOS, DOCTOR GARCIA, LISA KREBS, DEBORAH ZELASKO,
ROBERT MUELLER, and SHERRY BENTON: (1) Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request
to Waive Service of a Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service of Summons). The Clerk is
DIRECTED to mail these forms, a copy of the Complaint (Doc. 1), and this Memorandum and
Order to each Defendant’s place of employment as identified by Plaintiff. If a 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 that
Defendant, and the Court will require that Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to
the extent authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
With respect to a Defendant who no longer can be found at the work address provided by
Plaintiff, the employer shall furnish the Clerk with the Defendant’s current work address, or, if
not known, the Defendant’s last-known address. This information shall be used only for sending
the forms as directed above or for formally effecting service. Any documentation of the address
shall be retained only by the Clerk. Address information shall not be maintained in the court file

10

or disclosed by the Clerk.
Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendants (or upon defense counsel once an appearance is
entered), a copy of every pleading or other document submitted for consideration by the Court.
Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be filed a certificate stating the date on which a
true and correct copy of the document was served on Defendants or counsel. Any paper received
by a district judge or magistrate judge that has not been filed with the Clerk or that fails to
include a certificate of service will be disregarded by the Court.
Service shall not be made on the Unknown Defendant (Doctor John Doe) until such time
as Plaintiff has identified him by name in a properly filed motion for substitution. Plaintiff is
ADVISED that it is Plaintiff’s responsibility to provide the Court with the name and service
address for this individual.
Defendants are ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the
Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g).
Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a)(2), this action is REFERRED to United States Magistrate
Judge Stephen C. Williams for further pre-trial proceedings, including the implementation of a
plan for discovery aimed at identifying the unknown defendant, Doctor John Doe. Further, this
entire matter shall be REFERRED to United States Magistrate Judge Williams for disposition,
pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), if all parties consent to such a
referral.
If judgment is rendered against Plaintiff, and the judgment includes the payment of costs
under § 1915, Plaintiff will be required to pay the full amount of the costs, notwithstanding that
his application to proceed in forma pauperis has been granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)(A).
Plaintiff is ADVISED that at the time application was made under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for

11

leave to commence this civil action without being required to prepay fees and costs or give
security for the same, the applicant and his or her attorney were deemed to have entered into a
stipulation that the recovery, if any, secured in the action shall be paid to the Clerk of the Court,
who shall pay therefrom all unpaid costs taxed against plaintiff and remit the balance to plaintiff.
Local Rule 3.1(c)(1).
Finally, Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk
of Court and each opposing party informed of any change in his address; the Court will not
independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later than
7 days after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this order will
cause a delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in dismissal of this action
for want of prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 9, 2017
s/ MICHAEL J. REAGAN
U.S. Chief District Judge

12