Jones-Cooper v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. et al

Filing 13

Order for Service of Process upon Doctor Davis. Count 1 will proceed against Doctor Davis. Count 2 is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate Wexford Health Sources, Inc., John R. Baldwin, Warden Dennison, and Jane and John Does from the Court's Case Management/Electronic Case Filing ("CM/ECF") system. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 2/28/2019. (anp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JABARI JONES-COOPER,
#M47384
Plaintiff,
vs.

WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.,
DOCTOR DAVIS,
WARDEN DENNISON,
JOHN R. BALDWIN,
JOHN/JANE DOE MEDICAL AND
SECURITY STAFF,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 19-cv-1-SMY

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Plaintiff Jabari Jones-Cooper, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”) who is currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, brings this action for
deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges Defendants
at Shawnee Correctional Center were deliberately indifferent to continuing pain in his left leg, and
asserts claims under the Eighth Amendment. He seeks declaratory judgment and monetary
damages.1
This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, the Court is required to screen prisoner Complaints to
filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of a Complaint that is

1

Plaintiff originally sought injunctive relief, but because he is no longer housed at Shawnee Correctional Center and
his Complaint does not include any claims regarding his current care, that requested relief was denied. (See Doc. 6).

1

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 must be dismissed. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
The Complaint
Plaintiff makes the following allegations in his Complaint: Upon his arrival at Shawnee
Correctional Center (“Shawnee”) in July 2016, Plaintiff informed a nurse during his intake
interview that he was experiencing pain and numbness in his left leg. (Doc. 1, pp. 4-5). Plaintiff
saw Dr. Davis in August 2016 and Dr. Davis ordered an x-ray of his left leg. (Id.). The x-ray did
not reveal any issues, but Dr. Davis diagnosed Plaintiff with nerve damage and prescribed pain
medication. (Id.). The pain medication did not work, and Plaintiff experienced continuous and
increasing pain. (Id.). Although Plaintiff continued to put in sick call requests for his leg pain, he
did not see Dr. Davis again until November 2016. At that time, Dr. Davis changed Plaintiff’s pain
medication, but Plaintiff continued to experience increasing pain in his leg. (Id. at pp. 5-6). He
filed numerous sick call requests and grievances from December 2016 to August 2017, requesting
an MRI or CT scan to diagnose the pain in his leg. (Id.). Plaintiff did not see Dr. Davis again and
was ultimately transferred to Danville Correctional Center in August 2017.
The issues with Plaintiff's treatment are a result of systemic problems throughout IDOC
caused by a practice of failing to provide adequate health care. (Doc. 1, p. 11). Plaintiff learned
of this IDOC-wide problem through a report prepared for the case Lippert v. Godinez2, which
confirmed Plaintiff’s belief that Defendants Dennison, John Baldwin, Wexford Health Sources,
and various John and Jane Does fail to provide adequate health care to the inmate populations in
IDOC custody. (Id. at p. 6).

2

Lippert v. Godinez, No. 1:10-cv-04603 (N.D. Ill.).

2

Preliminary Dismissals
Although Plaintiff identifies Jane and John Doe medical and security staff as Defendants,
he fails to state a claim against any unknown medical and security staff. The only reference he
makes to unknown defendants in his Statement of the Claim is his assertion as to what he learned
from reading the Lippert report. (Doc. 1, p. 6). However, he makes no reference to the role
unknown medical and security staff played in his own care. Section 1983 does not authorize
respondeat superior or “supervisory liability.” Vinning-El v. Evans, 657 F.3d 591, 592 (7th Cir.
2011) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)). Therefore, in order to be held individually
liable, a defendant must be “personally responsible for the deprivation of a constitutional right.”
Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001) (quoting Chavez v. Ill. State Police,
251 F.3d 612, 651 (7th Cir. 2001)). Because Plaintiff fails to allege any personal involvement in
his care by these unknown defendants, he fails to state a claim against the Jane and John Does.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims against these defendants will be DISMISSED without prejudice.
Discussion
Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro
se action into the following Counts:
Count 1:

Doctor Davis was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s leg pain
when he failed to provide him with any treatment other than
pain medication in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Count 2:

Wexford Health Sources, Inc., Warden Dennison, and John R.
Baldwin implemented policies which failed to provide inmates
with adequate healthcare in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

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. Any other claim that is mentioned in the

3

Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be considered dismissed without prejudice
as inadequately pled under the Twombly pleading standard.3
Count 1
Plaintiff has stated a viable claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs
against Doctor Davis. Plaintiff alleges that he continued to suffer from pain and numbness in his
leg for over a year and that Doctor Davis only prescribed pain medication and failed to order
further tests to determine the cause of Plaintiff’s pain. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976);
Chatham v. Davis, 839 F.3d 679, 684 (7th Cir. 2016); Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d 859, 865 (7th
Cir. 2012) (delay in treatment); Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 655 (7th Cir. 2005) (finding
deliberate indifference where medical defendants persisted in a course of conservative treatment
for eighteen months despite no improvement); Kelley v. McGinnis, 899 F.2d 612, 616 (7th Cir.
1990) (deliberate indifference when doctor continues with treatment knowing it to be ineffective).
Therefore, the Court will allow Count 1 to proceed.
Count 2
Plaintiff’s claim against Wexford, Warden Dennison, and John Baldwin for
unconstitutional policies is subject to dismissal. First, Plaintiff has not included sufficient “factual
content to nudge his claim…across the line from conceivable to plausible.” McCauley v. City of
Chicago, 671 F.3d 611, 618 (7th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations omitted). He merely references a
generic policy of “failing to provide its inmate population with constitutionally adequate
healthcare.” (Doc. 1, p. 11). He fails to cite to any specific Wexford policy that he believes
violated his constitutional rights. Instead, Plaintiff merely asserts that he read the Lippert report

3

See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (an action fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”).

4

and is convinced by that report that there is a failure to provide inmates adequate health care. As
such, this policy-related claim must be dismissed without prejudice. Tripodi v. North Coventry
Twp., 616 Fed. Appx. 521, 523 (3rd Cir. 2015); Iacovangelo v. Corr. Med. Care, Inc., 624 Fed.
Appx. 10, 13-14 (2d Cir. 2015); Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 1313,
1330 (11th Cir. 2015).
Further, Plaintiff does not allege that any of the individual defendants, including Warden
Dennison and John Baldwin, were personally involved in the alleged constitutional violations. He
simply asserts that they are responsible for “systemic” problems at IDOC (Doc. 1, p. 11). This
fails to satisfy basic pleading standards. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. Plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. 570. The claim of entitlement to relief must cross “the line between
possibility and plausibility.” Id. at 557. Here, the conclusory allegations regarding the policies,
customs, and practices are insufficient to state a viable claim.

As such, Count 2 will be

DISMISSED without prejudice.
Motion for Counsel
In his Motion for Counsel (Doc. 3), Plaintiff claims that he needs counsel in order to obtain
an expert and because the claims are complex. He includes letters he has written to counsel, but
all declined to take his case. Given the early stage of the litigation, however, it is difficult to
accurately evaluate the need for assistance of counsel. See Kadamovas v. Stevens, 706 F.3d 843,
845 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[U]ntil the defendants respond to the complaint, the plaintiff’s need for
assistance of counsel ... cannot be gauged.”).4 Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Counsel (Doc. 3)

4

In evaluating the motion for counsel, the Court applies the factors discussed in Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654
(7th Cir. 2007), and related authority.

5

is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may renew his request for the recruitment of counsel at a
later date.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Count 1 will proceed against Doctor Davis.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Count 2 against Wexford Health Sources, Inc., John
R. Baldwin, and Warden Dennison is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate Wexford Health
Sources, Inc., John R. Baldwin, and Warden Dennison from the Court’s Case
Management/Electronic Case Filing (“CM/ECF”) system.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the John and Jane Doe Defendants are DISMISSED
without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Clerk is also
DIRECTED to terminate the John and Jane Doe Defendants from the Court’s CM/ECF system.
IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendant Doctor Davis: (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, and this Memorandum and Order to defendant’s place 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
formal service, to the extent authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because the Court
has ordered service, Plaintiff’s motion for service of process at government expense (Doc. 4) is
DENIED as moot.

6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if a defendant can no longer can be found at the work
address provided by Plaintiff, the employer shall furnish the Clerk with defendant’s current work
address, or, if not known, 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 or disclosed by the Clerk.
The 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. Section 1997e(g).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if judgment is rendered against Plaintiff, and the
judgment includes the payment of costs under Section 1915, Plaintiff will be required to pay the
full amount of the costs, regardless of whether his application to proceed in forma pauperis is
granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)(A).
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: 2/28/2019
/s/Staci M. Yandle_________
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

7

Notice to Plaintiff

The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the appropriate defendants of your lawsuit
and serve them with a copy of your complaint. After service has been achieved, the defendants
will enter their appearance and file an Answer to your Complaint. It will likely take at least 60
days from the date of this Order to receive the defendants’ Answer, but it is entirely possible that
it will take 90 days or more. When all the defendants have filed Answers, the Court will enter a
Scheduling Order containing important information on deadlines, discovery, and procedures.
Plaintiff is advised to wait until counsel has appeared for the defendants before filing any motions,
to give the defendants notice and an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed before
defendants’ counsel has filed an appearance will generally be denied as premature. Plaintiff need
not submit any evidence to the Court at this time, unless specifically directed to do so.

8