Hardy v. Rauner et al
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Counts 12-23, which are transactionally unrelated to Counts 1-11, are DISMISSED without prejudice as improperly joined. Defendants Trost, Siddiqi, Asselemeier, Newbold, Ritz, Wexford, Williams, Lang, Stinson, Shicker, Hinton, Doe #1, Doe #2, and Godinez are DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff may bring those claims in new, separate cases if he so desires. Counts 1-11 shall proceed in this case. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 4/6/2018. (tjk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
NEDRICK JEFFREY HARDY, SR.,
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.,
JOHN DOE 1,
JOHN DOE 2, and
Case No. 17 cv–1354 NJR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Plaintiff Nedrick Jeffrey Hardy, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”) currently housed at Menard Correctional Center, brings this action seeking damages
for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint requests
This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:
(a) Screening – The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in
any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in
which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee
of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for Dismissal – On review, the court shall identify
cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
The Court’s initial review of the 102-page Complaint suggests that parties and claims are
improperly joined pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. Thus, before screening the
case on the merits, the Court must apply Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 20 and 21.
In George v. Smith, the Seventh Circuit emphasized that unrelated claims against
different defendants belong in separate lawsuits, “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. 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007)
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(g)); Wheeler v. Talbot, 695 F. App’x 151, 152 (7th Cir. 2017)
(failing to sever mis-joined claims prejudices the United States Treasury); Owens v. Godinez,
860 F.3d 434, 436 (7th Cir. 2017). A prisoner who files a “buckshot complaint” that includes
multiple unrelated claims against different individuals should not be allowed to avoid “risking
multiple strikes for what should have been several different lawsuits.” Turley v. Gaetz, 625 F.3d
1005, 1011 (7th Cir. 2010). The Court has broad discretion as to whether to sever claims
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 or to dismiss improperly joined defendants. See
Owens v. Hinsely, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011); Rice v. Sunrise Express, Inc., 209 F.3d
1008, 1016 (7th Cir. 2000).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 permits joinder of all claims that “aris[e] out of the
same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; [when] any question of
law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.” That means that a plaintiff cannot
join separate claims against different defendants or sets of defendants in the same lawsuit, unless
he or she sserts a claim for relief against each defendant that arises out of the same transaction or
occurrence or series thereof, and presents common questions of law or fact. Owens, 860 F.3d at
436; George, 507 F.3d at 607.
Plaintiff alleges that Menard is overcrowded and that the State of Illinois knows about the
problem. (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6). Plaintiff arrived at Menard in 2014. (Doc. 1, p. 7). As a result of the
overcrowding, he has been housed in double-man cells that were designed to house only one
inmate. (Doc. 1, p. 19). Plaintiff has been unable to exercise in these cells, causing him to
develop arthritis, knee pain, back pain, headaches, and constipation. Id. Specifically, Plaintiff
was assigned to the North 1 Upper Cell House, the South Uppers, and the South Lowers. (Doc. 1,
Plaintiff also was inappropriately placed in a cell with an inmate with a history of
violence. (Doc. 1, p. 19). That cellmate threatened Plaintiff’s life in front of an unnamed officer,
and the officer stated that he would take no action. (Doc. 1, pp. 19-20). Plaintiff wrote a
grievance; he was later moved. (Doc. 1, p. 20).
Plaintiff also alleges that he is being denied access to the courts. (Doc. 1, p. 21). Menard
only permits inmates to visit the law library one day a week. Id. Plaintiff’s visits with his
attorneys are non-contact visits, and when his lawyers have documents for him to inspect, a
guard must be present. Id. On ten different occasions, Plaintiff has made a privileged phone call
with his attorney in a space where he could be overheard by others. (Doc. 1, p. 22). Plaintiff also
objects to the use of a “runner system” in the segregation units, in which other inmates are used
to carry legal documents to the law library. Id. He alleges that the system permits inmates to read
his privileged legal documents. Id. Plaintiff’s legal mail has been opened outside of his presence
on more than eighty different occasions between 2014 and 2017. Id. His legal mail also was held
for up to seven days. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that he has to wear the same clothes for a year or more, despite having
holes in his underwear. (Doc. 1, p. 23).
Menard serves inmates soy products due to budget cuts, which has caused Plaintiff to
experience stomach cramps, constipation, straining, and a hernia. Id. Plaintiff alleges that he
notified defendants about these conditions, and defendants were on notice of the conditions from
other lawsuits. (Doc. 1, pp. 23-24).
Plaintiff alleges that the grievance process is insufficient to address problems with staff
conduct. (Doc. 1, pp. 24-25). The State of Illinois, IDOC, Rauner, Baldwin, Butler, and
Lashbrook are violating their “carceral burden” in ignoring all of the above issues. (Doc. 1,
Menard has no ventilation system, and Plaintiff was subjected to extreme heat
temperatures when he was housed in segregation and placed behind a steel door. (Doc. 1, p. 26).
At an unspecified time, Plaintiff was not given his fan. Id. He alleges that Defendants knew that
the segregation cells were dangerous because other inmates have died. Id. Plaintiff wrote medical
staff and spoke to them face-to-face about his heat sensitivity due to his medications. Id. Medical
staff told Plaintiff he was not heat sensitive. (Doc. 1, p. 27).
There also was black mold in segregation, and specifically in Plaintiff’s cell, for three
months. Id. Plaintiff developed more than one sinus infection from the black mold. Id. There also
was black mold in the showers of multiple cell houses. Id. The showers in the South Uppers have
a sign on the door warning people not to close the door all the way, suggesting that “they” know
there is mold in the shower. (Doc. 1, p. 31). Plaintiff caught an upper respiratory infection from
this mold, and he had to be taken to an outside hospital for an IV and antibiotics. (Doc. 1, p. 27).
In addition, Plaintiff was placed in a cell with blood and feces on the wall without
adequate cleaning supplies. Id. He also fell as a result of being assigned to the top bunk, which
lacks a ladder, and as a result, he hurt his back. (Doc. 1, p. 27-28).
And, as if that is not enough, Menard has “ping-pong” toilets, which do not adequately
flush and thereby harm Plaintiff’s health. Id. Moreover, the water on the exercise yard is turned
off in the winter, and Plaintiff is not able to bring a water bottle out with him, causing him to be
without water for three hours, which is bad for his high blood pressure. Id.
Defendants do not give Plaintiff the one hour of exercise mandated by the Illinois
Administrative Code. Id. This causes Plaintiff back pain, headaches, and constipation. Id.
Plaintiff goes on to allege that the cell house is infested with vermin. Id. As a result of the
mice, roach, ants, black flies, and gnat infestation, Plaintiff has lost commissary food. Id. The
vermin also has gotten in his face and property boxes. Id. The kitchen is also specifically infested
with pests, including roaches, mice, birds, flies, and gnats. (Doc. 1, p. 29). There are also cracks
in the walls. Id. And the water in the sinks and showers frequently smells bad; Plaintiff believes
the sewer lines are backing up into the sinks and showers. Id. As a result, he has itchy skin. Id.
The trays upon which meals are served are falling apart and unsanitary. (Doc. 1, p. 30).
Plaintiff choked on a piece of plastic once and showed it to a correctional officer, but the officer
just laughed. Id. Likewise, the cups that the inmates use are not properly cleaned; Plaintiff
believes he once got diarrhea from drinking out of the cups. Id.
In the winter, the heating system does not distribute the air evenly, and cold air blows in
through broken windows, cracks in the windows, and doors. Id. The maintenance men will not
fix these issues. Id.
When Plaintiff was housed in the East and West cell houses at Menard, he was
discriminated against because the administration did not allow these cell houses to go to night
yard, and their commissary purchases were subjected to a dollar amount limit. (Doc. 1, p. 31).
Plaintiff has had to sleep on bedframes on several occasions that were bent, dented,
filthy, and/or lumpy, which caused him back pain and numbness in his legs and feet. (Doc. 1,
p. 32). Plaintiff complained, but his complaints were ignored until his family and friends
intervened. Id. Then he was retaliated against by being celled with violent inmates. Id. When he
has been sent to segregation, Plaintiff has been denied hygiene products. (Doc. 1, p. 32-33).
Plaintiff dislocated his pinky finger. (Doc. 1, p. 33). He had to be sent out for an x-ray
because there was no doctor or x-ray machine on the grounds. Id. The hospital was going to give
Plaintiff a metal brace, but Officer Stinson falsely told the doctor that Plaintiff could not have the
metal brace at Menard. (Doc. 1, p. 34). Plaintiff was given a plastic brace instead, which did not
offer any support, and his finger was taped to a tongue depressor. Id. Plaintiff had previously had
a similar injury where he severed the pip joint/ligament. Id. He asked the doctor whether he had
done so this time, but the doctor told him that he would need an MRI to make that determination.
(Doc. 1, p. 35). Plaintiff requested an MRI when he got back to Menard, but the nurse told him
that Wexford would not approve an MRI for his injury. Id. Plaintiff was never given a follow-up
visit, and when he complained about pain and that the tape fell off the splint, he was ignored. Id.
Plaintiff sent in sick call slips about his finger from January 30 through February 12, 2017.
(Doc. 1, p. 36). Plaintiff finally got an x-ray on March 2, 2017, which showed degenerative
changes. Id. Plaintiff was denied medical care, an MRI, and surgery for his finger by Dr. Trost
and Dr. Siddiqi. (Doc. 1, pp. 36, 38). Dr. Caldwell eventually recommended an orthopedic
consult, but Plaintiff was denied follow up care, and as a result, he is disfigured and has constant
pain in his fingers. (Doc. 1, p. 37). Plaintiff alleges that Wexford has an unwritten policy to not
send inmates out for MRIs or other specialized care in an attempt to save money. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Ritz denies 95% of all recommendations for MRIs, orthopedic consults,
and other specialized care. (Doc. 1, p. 39). Plaintiff alleges that he told both Butler and
Lashbrook about his medical care through grievances and letters, and that he also sent a letter to
Rauner, who sent it to Baldwin. (Doc. 1, pp. 39-42).
Plaintiff has been diagnosed with attention deficient disorder (“ADD”) (Doc. 1, p. 43).
He was treated for the disorder while housed at Stateville Correctional Center around 2006 or
2007. Plaintiff was told at the time that Wexford did not treat ADD because IDOC did not stock
the medications used to treat it. Id. Plaintiff wrote letters to Shicker, Doe #2, and Hinton
explaining that he had been diagnosed with ADD and treated for it in the past. Id. They never
responded. (Doc. 1, p. 44). Plaintiff also wrote to Dr. Trost and Butler and explained that he was
depressed as a result of not receiving treatment for his ADD. (Doc. 1, p. 44). Plaintiff also
alleges that the failure to treat his ADD made the other treatment he received for his mental
health issues ineffective. Id. Plaintiff wrote to Doe #2 again after the death of his daughter to
complain that he was depressed and his mental health issues were not being treated. (Doc. 1,
pp. 45-46). Plaintiff alleges that he has caused harm to himself in the past as a result of untreated
mental health issues, and he speculates that he is likely to become suicidal if not treated. (Doc. 1,
p. 47). Plaintiff also alleges that the refusal to treat him violates his Eighth Amendment rights, as
well as the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Doc. 1, p. 48).
Plaintiff also alleges that he has been deprived of adequate dental care. (Doc. 1, p. 49).
Specifically, he alleges that Wexford has a policy of deliberately delaying dental care due to
understaffing for the purpose of saving money. (Doc. 1, pp. 49-50). Plaintiff suffered from
bleeding and painful gums for months before he was finally permitted to see Dr. Asselmeier on
March 12, 2016. (Doc. 1, p. 50). Plaintiff had been putting in for a teeth cleaning since 2014.
(Doc. 1-1, p. 1). Dr. Asselmeier acknowledged that prisoners did not get cleanings every six
months or standard toothbrushes, but he told Plaintiff that it was his fault for being in prison. Id.
Dr. Asselmeier refused to give Plaintiff anything other than ibuprofen for his gum pain. Id.
Plaintiff’s gums continued to hurt, and he put in dental request slips from August 13, 2016,
through June 24, 2017. (Doc 1-1, p. 2). Plaintiff complained to Dr. Siddiqi that dental was not
responsive to his needs, but Dr. Siddiqi declined to get involved. Id. Plaintiff also complained to
Wardens Butler and Lashbrook. (Doc. 1-1, p. 3).
Plaintiff finally saw Dr. Newbold on August 28, 2017. Id. He alleges that part of the
delay was attributable to Wexford because Wexford, Lashbrook, and Baldwin have a policy of
suspending or cancelling medical passes, dental passes, optometry passes, and psych passes
during lockdowns. (Doc. 1-1, pp. 3, 26). Newbold diagnosed Plaintiff with a cracked tooth on the
right side and an exposed nerve in the front left side of his mouth, but Newbold declined to
provide treatment for these issues. Id. Newbold ordered x-rays, but they were not taken until
September 18, 2017, because of Wexford’s policy of cancelling medical passes. (Doc. 1-1, p. 4).
Plaintiff was supposed to have a follow-up appointment to discuss the x-ray, but it never
happened; when he complained to Dr. Siddiqi that he had not gotten a dental follow-up, Dr.
Siddiqi declined to intervene. Id. Plaintiff also informed Butler, Lashbrook, Baldwin, and
Shicker of his complaints regarding Wexford’s provision of health care, but they did nothing.
(Doc. 1-1, pp. 4-5).
Plaintiff next alleges that Lang and Williams denied him his high blood pressure
medication and blood pressure checks in March 2017 in retaliation for naming them in another
lawsuit. (Doc. 1-1, pp. 6, 10, 13-14). Plaintiff notified Dr. Siddiqi that Lang and Williams were
withholding his medication, but Dr. Siddiqi told Plaintiff that he believed the nurses over him.
(Doc. 1-1, pp. 10-11).
On more than twenty occasions, Plaintiff’s blood pressure readings were high, but Dr.
Siddiqi, Ritz, and Wexford persisted in a course of treatment that had not worked to lower
Plaintiff’s blood pressure. (Doc. 1-1, p. 11). An outside consultation with a nephrologist was
recommended, but Ritz and Wexford would not let Plaintiff get one. (Doc. 1-1, p. 12). This
problem has been ongoing since 2014. Id. As a result of his poorly controlled blood pressure,
Plaintiff’s feet swelled, and he experienced chest pains and had to be given an EKG. (Doc. 1-1,
Plaintiff also had a hernia, but he was informed by several nurses and physicians that
Wexford would take no action until his hernia became strangulated. (Doc. 1-1, p. 6). Plaintiff
informed Dr. Siddiqi, Lang, Williams, and Shicker that he was diagnosed with a hernia that was
constantly causing him pain. (Doc. 1-1, pp. 6-7). Plaintiff complained about his hernia at the
hypertension clinic to Dr. Trost, Dr. Siddiqi, and other non-defendants, but they all told him that
the issue was unrelated to hypertension. (Doc. 1-1, p. 7). Plaintiff claims that the medical
providers acted pursuant to a Wexford policy, and the purpose of the Wexford policy was to save
money. (Doc. 1-1, pp. 8-9). Plaintiff also complained to IDOC, Rauner, Baldwin, Shicker,
Butler, and Lashbrook about Wexford’s cost-cutting policies, but they ignored him. (Doc. 1-1, p.
Plaintiff experienced problems with his eyes. (Doc. 1-1, p. 16). Plaintiff’s eyes were
frequently watery, crusty, dry, irritated, itchy, and red. Id. The eye doctor prescribed Plaintiff eye
drops (artificial tears) and some gel ointment around 2010 while at Stateville. (Doc. 1-1, p. 17).
The Stateville eye doctor continued in this course of treatment despite the fact that Plaintiff’s
eyes continued to give him trouble. Id.
In May 2014, Plaintiff was transferred to Menard where he explained to the eye doctor
his past history and the limited efficacy of the drops and ointment. Id. Plaintiff continued to
complain about his eyes, but the eye doctor never changed her treatment or sent Plaintiff out to a
specialist. (Doc. 1-1, p. 18). Plaintiff alleges that this was the result of a Wexford cost-cutting
policy. (Doc. 1-1, pp. 17-19).
Plaintiff saw John Doe #1, who replaced the prior eye doctor at Menard, and gave him his
medical history. (Doc. 1-1, p. 19). Plaintiff claims that Doe #1 was unable to effectively examine
him because Doe #1 uses a wheelchair. (Doc. 1-1, p. 20). Doe #1 continued Plaintiff on the same
ineffective course of treatment that Plaintiff had been on for years. (Doc. 1-1, pp. 20-21). Doe #1
eventually diagnosed Plaintiff with Meibomian Gland Dysfunction and prescribed some
antibiotics, but Plaintiff alleges the treatment did not work. (Doc. 1-1, p. 21). Plaintiff’s eyesight
got blurry. Id. He was prescribed new glasses to correct his vision, but Plaintiff refused to sign
for the glasses without trying them on first, and the nurses refused to give Plaintiff the glasses if
he didn’t sign. (Doc. 1-1, pp. 22-23). Doe #1 also prescribed Plaintiff baby shampoo for his eyes,
but the baby shampoo did not work. (Doc. 1-1, p. 23). Plaintiff alleges that Doe #1 acted
pursuant to a Wexford cost-cutting policy. Plaintiff complained to Dr. Trost and Dr. Siddiqi that
Doe #1 had only prescribed eye drops, eye gel, antibiotics, and glasses. (Doc. 1-1, p. 24).
Plaintiff also wrote an emergency grievance to Lashbrook. (Doc. 1-1, p. 25). Plaintiff also wrote
to Baldwin, Shicker, and Lashbrook and asked them to personally monitor his medical care for
his eyes, but they ignored him. (Doc. 1-1, p. 26).
Plaintiff also suffers from carpal tunnel syndrome, which causes pain and numbness in
his hand, wrist, and elbow. (Doc. 1-1, p. 27). The condition also affects his ability to hold and
grab items. (Doc. 1-1, p. 28). Plaintiff requested an MRI for his arm, but Dr. Trost and Dr.
Siddiqi, along with other non-defendants, told him that Wexford would not pay for an MRI. Id.
Plaintiff wrote to Lashbrook, Baldwin, and Shicker and asked them to personally monitor his
medical care because Wexford was not fulfilling its obligation to provide adequate medical care.
(Doc. 1-1, p. 30).
Plaintiff’s hand also shook at times, and he was observed by Defendants Williams and
Lang, but they refused to let Plaintiff see the doctor. (Doc. 1-1, p. 32). Plaintiff claims Williams
and Lang refused to help him in retaliation for past grievances and lawsuits. Id. Plaintiff has
written to Baldwin, Butler, Lashbrook, Shicker, Godinez, and Rauner about this problem, but
they also ignored him. (Doc. 1-1, p. 33).
Plaintiff alleges that Wexford, Rauner, Baldwin, Godinez, Butler, Lashbrook, Shicker,
Doe #1, Doe #2, Hinton, Dr. Asselmeier, Newbold, Dr. Trost, and Dr. Siddiqi have intentionally
inflicted emotional distress on him in violation of state law by ignoring his requests for medical
treatment for his eyesight, carpal tunnel syndrome, dislocated finger, severe high blood pressure,
and hernia, and also by denying him dental care, disability accommodations, and mental health
services. (Doc. 1-1, p. 34).
Plaintiff further alleges that Lang and Williams intentionally inflicted emotional distress
upon him by refusing to provide him with his prescribed medications for high blood pressure and
by refusing to forward his complaints about his carpal tunnel syndrome. (Doc. 1-1, p. 36).
Plaintiff also alleges that Rauner, Godinez, Baldwin, Butler, and Lashbrook deliberately
inflicted emotional distress upon him because they subjected him to unconstitutional conditions
of confinement. (Doc. 1-1, p. 38).
Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from bilateral knee pain, degenerative disk disease,
arthritic shoulders, herniated disks, and acromioclavicular joint pain, and that he has been
disabled within the meaning of the law since 2007. (Doc. 1-1, p. 41). While at Stateville, Plaintiff
was issued waist chain, low bunk, and low gallery permits to accommodate his disabilities, but
when he transferred to Menard, his permits were cancelled pursuant to an unwritten policy
created by IDOC staff and Wexford without examination by a medical professional. Id. Plaintiff
suffers pain as a result of denial of these permits, and he argues that the denial constitutes a
violation of the Rehabilitation Act. (Doc. 1-1, pp. 41-43).
Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants Wexford, Godinez, Baldwin, Butler, Lashbrook,
Shicker, Hinton, Dr. Siddiqi, John Doe #2 (Menard Mental Health Director) deliberately inflicted
emotional distress when they refused to treat his ADD. (Doc. 1-1, 44-45).
Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants Butler, Lashbrook, Godinez, and Baldwin denied
him access to the courts when they permitted staff to interfere with the grievance process,
making it difficult for Plaintiff to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Doc. 1-1, pp. 45-46).
Based on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro
se action into 23 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 following claims will proceed in this action:
Count 1 –
Baldwin, Butler, IDOC, Lashbrook, and Rauner were deliberately
indifferent to the overcrowded conditions of confinement at
Menard Correctional Center, which caused Plaintiff to be doublecelled in a cell designed for one inmate, in violation of the Eighth
Count 2 –
Baldwin, Butler, IDOC, Lashbrook, and Rauner were deliberately
indifferent to an incident where Plaintiff was celled with a violent
inmate due to overcrowding, in violation of the Eighth
Count 3 –
Baldwin, Butler, IDOC, Lashbrook, and Rauner subjected Plaintiff
to unconstitutional conditions of confinement when they assigned
him to cells that lacked ventilation, had black mold, were smeared
with blood and feces, had lumpy and painful mattresses and bed
frames, were infested with vermin and had “ping-pong” toilets, and
deprived him of adequate exercise in violation of the Eighth
Count 4 –
Baldwin, Butler, IDOC, Lashbrook, and Rauner had a policy of
denying inmates adequate access to the courts, in violation of the
Count 5 –
Baldwin, Butler, IDOC, Lashbrook, and Rauner gave Plaintiff an
inadequate clothing allowance, in violation of the Eighth
Count 6 –
Baldwin, Butler, IDOC, Lashbrook, and Rauner subjected Plaintiff
to a soy diet in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
Count 7 –
Baldwin, Butler, Godinez, and Lashbrook had an inadequate
grievance process at Menard Correctional Center in violation of
the First Amendment;
Count 8 –
Baldwin, Butler, IDOC, Lashbrook, and Rauner had a policy that
inmates could not bring water onto the yard, placing Plaintiff at
risk for dehydration, in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
Count 9 –
Baldwin, Butler, IDOC, Lashbrook, and Rauner exposed Plaintiff
to poor quality water, in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
Count 10 –
Baldwin, Butler, IDOC, Lashbrook, and Rauner exposed Plaintiff
to unsanitary meal trays in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
Count 11 –
Baldwin, Butler, Godinez, Lashbrook, and Rauner intentionally
inflicted emotional distress upon Plaintiff in violation of Illinois
state law due to their refusal to act to correct the unconstitutional
conditions of confinement at Menard;
Plaintiff also has attempted to bring other Counts, but the Court finds that those claims are not
transactionally related to the claims at issue in Counts 1-11 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 20. Counts 1-11 raise various claims regarding the conditions of confinement at
Menard. In fact, Plaintiff’s Complaint structures most of the Counts above as a single claim,
premised on the policies and practices of high-level officials. In contrast, Counts 12-13 involve
the treatment of Plaintiff’s various medical conditions at the hands of medical care providers.
The factual inquiries into whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s multiple
and unrelated serious medical needs are completely distinct and separate from the questions
raised in Counts 1-11, which ask the Court to inquire into Plaintiff’s physical surroundings at
Menard. As the factual issues vary greatly between claim groupings, they are not transactionally
To avoid prejudicing Plaintiff at this time, and because he may not be willing to pay the
additional filing fees for these cases, the Court will dismiss the following claims without
prejudice. See Owens v. Hinsely, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011); Rice v. Sunrise Express,
Inc., 209 F.3d 1008, 1016 (7th Cir. 2000).
Count 12 –
Baldwin, Butler, Caldwell, Lashbrook, Rauner, Ritz, Siddiqi,
Trost, and Wexford were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s
dislocated pinky finger in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
Count 13 –
Butler, Doe #2, Hinton, Shicker, Trost, and Wexford were
deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s ADD in violation of the
Count 14 –
Baldwin, Butler, Doe #2, Hinton, Godinez, Lashbrook, Shicker,
Siddiqi, and Wexford intentionally inflicted emotional distress on
Plaintiff, in violation of Illinois state law by failing to treat his
Count 15 –
Asselmeier, Baldwin, Butler, Lashbrook, Newbold, Shicker,
Siddiqi, and Wexford were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s
dental needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
Lang, Williams, and Siddiqui withheld Plaintiff’s blood pressure
medication in retaliation for his grievance and lawsuit activity in
violation of the First Amendment;
Count 17 –
Ritz, Siddiqi, and Wexford were deliberately indifferent to
Plaintiff’s blood pressure when they continued a course of
treatment they knew was ineffective in violation of the Eighth
Count 18 –
Siddiqi and Wexford were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s
hernia when they refused to provide anything other than
conservative treatment in violation of the Eighth Amendment;
Count 19 –
Baldwin, Doe #1, Lashbrook, Shicker, Siddiqi, Trost, and Wexford
were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s eye condition in
violation of the Eighth Amendment;
Count 20 –
Baldwin, Butler, Godinez, Lashbrook, Lang, Rauner, Shicker,
Siddiqi, Trost, Wexford, and Williams were deliberately
indifferent to Plaintiff’s carpal tunnel syndrome in violation of the
Count 21 –
Asselmeier, Doe #1, Doe #2, Hinton, Newbold, Rauner, Siddiqi,
Trost, and Wexford intentionally inflicted emotional distress when
they created a health care system that left Plaintiff’s eyesight,
carpal tunnel syndrome, dislocated finger, blood pressure, hernia,
teeth, and mental health inadequately treated and his disabilities
inadequately accommodated in violation of Illinois state law;
Count 22 –
Lang and Williams intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon
Plaintiff when they withheld his medication for his blood pressure
and refused to treat his carpal tunnel syndrome in violation of
Illinois state law; and
Count 23 –
IDOC and Wexford refused to develop policies to accommodate
Plaintiff’s disabilities in violation of the Rehabilitation Act.
Plaintiff may file other lawsuits if he wishes to pursue these claims, but he is warned that
his many medical claims are likely also transactionally unrelated to each other and that if he
attempts to bring those claims in a single lawsuit again, those claims could be subjected to
severance and the imposition of further filing fees.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Counts 12-23, which are transactionally unrelated to
Counts 1-11, are DISMISSED without prejudice as improperly joined. Defendants Trost,
Siddiqi, Asselemeier, Newbold, Ritz, Wexford, Williams, Lang, Stinson, Shicker, Hinton, Doe
#1, Doe #2, and Godinez are DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff may bring those claims
in new, separate cases if he so desires. Counts 1-11 shall proceed in this case.
DATED: April 6, 2018
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge
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?