Saterfield v. Baldwin et al

Filing 138

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court ADOPTS the Report as MODIFIED by this order (Doc. 124), OVERRULES Dr. Siddiqui's objections (Doc. 131), OVERRULES Saterfield's objections (Doc. 136), GRANTS Dr. Ritz's motion for summary judgment on ex haustion grounds (Doc. 50), DENIES Dr. Siddiqui's motion for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds (Doc. 96) and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly at the close of the case. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 11/4/2019. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LLOYD SATERFIELD,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 18-cv-560-JPG-GCS

JOHN R. BALDWIN, JACQUELINE
LASHBROOK, WEXFORD HEALTH
SOURCES, INC., STEPHEN RITZ, ROBERT
SMITH, and MOHAMMED SIDDIQUI,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (Doc.
124) of Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison. After holding a hearing on January 25, 2019,
Magistrate Judge Sison recommended that the Court grant the motion for summary judgment
filed by defendant Dr. Stephen Ritz (Doc. 50) and deny the summary judgment motion filed by
defendant Dr. Mohammed Siddiqui (Doc. 96). Both motions are based on the assertion that
plaintiff Lloyd Saterfield failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Dr. Siddiqui has
objected to the Report to the extent it concerns him (Doc. 131), and Saterfield has responded to
that objection (Doc. 135). Saterfield has also objected to the Report to the extent it concerns Dr.
Ritz (Doc. 136), and Dr. Ritz has responded to that objection (Doc. 137).
This case arose because Saterfield suffers from ongoing back problems, and he is not
happy with the medical treatment provided by Dr. Siddiqui, Dr. Ritz, and others.
I.

Report Review Standard
The Court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations of the magistrate judge in a report and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b)(3). The Court must review de novo the portions of the report to which objections are
made. Id. “If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews
those unobjected portions for clear error.” Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th
Cir. 1999).
II.

Dr. Ritz’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 50)
Magistrate Judge Sison found in the Report that Saterfield filed a grievance on November

27, 2017, complaining about Dr. Ritz’s September 7, 2017, request for collegial review, Wexford
Health Sources Inc.’s (“Wexford”) process to approve or deny a medical service requested by a
prison doctor. The grievance officer denied the grievance as late because it was filed more than
60 days after September 7, 2017. Saterfield went through all the grievance steps thereafter, and
the Administrative Review Board made the final denial of his grievance on January 19, 2018.
Magistrate Judge Sison found that the continuing violation doctrine does not help Saterfield
because that doctrine only excuses exhaustion for later events of a continuing violation as long as
a timely grievance was filed after the beginning of the violation.
Saterfield objects to the Court’s interpretation of the continuing violation doctrine. He
argues that the doctrine allows reaching back to events before the filing of the grievance. He
notes that his grievance makes clear that Dr. Ritz was one of his medical providers and that he
continued to suffer from his medical problems, which is sufficient to exhaust as to Dr. Ritz.
As a preliminary matter, Magistrate Judge Sison misidentifies Dr. Ritz as a prison doctor
who would have had appointments to examine, diagnose, and/or treat Saterfield. From the
allegations in the grievance and complaint, however, it is clear that Dr. Ritz is not a prison doctor
but a doctor working for Wexford Health Sources, Inc. as part of the collegial review process.
Grievance 2 (Doc. 97-2 at 18); Am. Compl. ¶¶ 23 & 28. Thus, Dr. Ritz’s involvement was not
2

as a treating physician but as a reviewing physician making discrete decisions on medical service
requests from treating physicians. That distinction sheds a different light on the exhaustion
question.
Saterfield’s argument ignores the plain text of the administrative rule on grievances,
which states, “A grievance must be filed with the counselor or Grievance Officer in accordance
with the procedures in this Subpart, within 60 days after the discovery of the incident, occurrence
or problem that gives rise to the grievance.” 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.810 (emphasis added).
Thus, by the very terms of the administrative rule, in order to exhaust, Saterfield must have
grieved Dr. Ritz’s conduct within 60 days of when he discovered his health problem and Dr.
Ritz’s participation in it. This point in time is clear where Saterfield complains of a specific
discrete instance by Dr. Ritz—the decision to deny a “medical special service” of an MRI.
Grievance 2 (Doc. 97-2 at 18); Am. Compl. ¶¶ 23 & 28; see Ramirez v. Young, 906 F.3d 530,
539 (7th Cir. 2018) (noting that “many people assert that problems are ongoing, when the issue
really stems from a discrete act that starts the clock running”). Saterfield did not file his
grievance within 60 days of Dr. Ritz’s discrete decision to deny a specifically requested
diagnostic test, so the grievance was not timely.
The continuing violation doctrine does not save Saterfield’s claim. The doctrine means
that after Saterfield files a timely grievance about Dr. Ritz, he does not have to keep filing them
for ongoing problems with Dr. Ritz, that is, ongoing deliberate indifference by Dr. Ritz to
Saterfield’s medical needs. See Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 650 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[O]nce
a prison has received notice of, and an opportunity to correct, a problem, the prisoner has
satisfied the purpose of the exhaustion requirement.”). But it does not excuse Saterfield from
filing a timely grievance to begin with, which he failed to do in this case concerning Dr. Ritz.
3

For this reason, after a de novo review, the Court will adopt the Report to the extent it
recommends granting Dr. Ritz’s motion for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds.
III.

Dr. Siddiqui’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 96)
Magistrate Judge Sison found in the Report that Saterfield’s November 27, 2017,

grievance mentioned Dr. Siddiqui’s November 6, 2017, request to the collegial review process
for Saterfield to receive an MRI for his back problems. In the grievance, Saterfield also
complained about his continuing back issues. Magistrate Judge Sison found that Saterfield had
exhausted this grievance as to his claims against Dr. Siddiqui and was therefore able to maintain
this lawsuit against him.
Dr. Siddiqui objects on three grounds. First, he claims Saterfield’s grievance, although
mentioning Dr. Siddiqui, did not complaint of Dr. Siddiqui’s treatment. Second, he claims
Saterfield’s grievance does not specifically complain of Dr. Siddiqui’s failure to provide any
treatment beyond pain medications. The Court disagrees and finds that a liberal reading of
Saterfield’s grievance contains an implicit complaint that his medical provider at the time—Dr.
Siddiqui—was not providing appropriate care for his back treatment, whether it be through
seeking approval for an MRI or providing effective medication. This is sufficient to have raised
his claims against Dr. Siddiqui in the grievance.
Third, Dr. Siddiqui argues that the November 2017 grievance did not—and could not—
have included complaints about Dr. Siddiqui’s conduct in May 2018. However, the Court
agrees with Magistrate Judge Sison that Saterfield’s complaints about Dr. Siddiqui’s treatment in
May 2018 are part and parcel of the same alleged failure to adequately treat that began in 2017.
Thus, Saterfield alleges a continuing Eighth Amendment violation for which it would be
unreasonable for him to file a new grievance. See Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 651 (7th
4

Cir. 2013).
For this reason, after a de novo review, the Court will adopt the Report to the extent it
recommends denying Dr. Siddiqui’s motion for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds.
IV.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court:
•

ADOPTS the Report as MODIFIED by this order (Doc. 124);

•

OVERRULES Dr. Siddiqui’s objections (Doc. 131);

•

OVERRULES Saterfield’s objections (Doc. 136);

•

GRANTS Dr. Ritz’s motion for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds (Doc. 50);

•

DENIES Dr. Siddiqui’s motion for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds (Doc. 96);
and

•

DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly at the close of the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 4, 2019
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

5