Murphy v. Wexford Health Care Source Inc. et al
Filing
71
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 62 Motion for Summary Judgment. The motion is granted as to Defendant Frank Lawrence, who is DISMISSED without prejudice due to Plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. The motion i s denied as to Defendant Alex Jones. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to SUBSTITUTE Anthony Wills, in his official capacity, for Defendant Alex Jones. The stay on discovery on the merits of Plaintiff's claims is LIFTED, and the parties can proceed with discovery. A new schedule will be entered by separate order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty on 8/17/20. (klh2)
Case 3:19-cv-01051-MAB Document 71 Filed 08/17/20 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #354
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAMELL MURPHY,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
WEXFORD HEALTH CARE SOURCES, )
INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
Case No. 3:19-cv-1051-MAB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BEATTY, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is before the Court on a motion for summary judgment for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies filed by Defendants Frank Lawrence and Alex Jones
(“IDOC Defendants”) (Doc. 62). The motion was filed on April 22, 2020. To date, Plaintiff
has not offered any response, despite being ordered to show cause on or before July 14,
2020 why the Court should not construe his failure to respond as an admission of the
merits of the motion (Doc. 69). The Court also noted that instead of responding to the
Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff could simply file a response to the summary judgment
motion (Id.). Plaintiff has done neither. For the ensuing reasons, the IDOC Defendants’
motion for summary judgment (Doc. 62) will be granted in part.
Page 1 of 6
Case 3:19-cv-01051-MAB Document 71 Filed 08/17/20 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #355
Background
Plaintiff Jamell Murphy (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on August 20, 2019 (Doc. 1).
Following a threshold review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1915A, Plaintiff
was permitted to proceed on the following claims:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Wobasi for deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need for concealing the fact that Murphy
had a mass on his left lung and failing to provide treatment for the mass.
Count 2: Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Mohammed Siddiqui for
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need for denying treatment for
that mass.
Count 3: Eighth Amendment claim against Wexford for deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs based on its policy and/or custom of
concealing medical conditions and delaying and denying medical care to
reduce costs at the expense of the health of inmates which resulted in the
concealment of the mass on Murphy’s left lung and delay and denial of
treatment for the mass on his left lung and the mass on his spleen.
Count 4: Eighth Amendment claim against Warden Frank Lawrence for
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need based on his knowledge
of a continuing Eighth Amendment violation for the denial of treatment of
the mass on Murphy’s spleen.
(Doc. 7). 1
Plaintiff also filed a motion for preliminary injunction at the time he filed his
complaint (Doc. 2). The Court noted that the Warden of Menard Correctional Center—
Frank Lawrence, who was already a Defendant in his individual capacity—was the
appropriate official capacity defendant for the purpose of implementing any injunctive
relief that may be ordered (Doc. 7). Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s motion for
This case was assigned to Chief Judge Rosenstengel until March 6, 2020, when it was transferred to the
undersigned magistrate judge for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Page 2 of 6
1
Case 3:19-cv-01051-MAB Document 71 Filed 08/17/20 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #356
preliminary injunction as ordered by the Court (Docs. 33, 57). However, before briefing
on Plaintiff’s motion was completed, the Court decided to recruit an attorney to represent
Plaintiff (Doc 34), and counsel entered his appearance on behalf of Plaintiff on November
21, 2019 (Doc. 38).
The Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction on March
5, 2020 (Doc. 58). The Court took the matter under advisement, but ultimately entered an
Order that same day denying Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 59). The Court also noted that Frank
Lawrence was no longer the Warden of Menard and substituted Alex Jones (the then
acting warden) in place of Lawrence as an official capacity defendant for the purpose of
implementing future injunctive relief in this case (Id.). That same Order also dismissed
Dr. Wobasi without prejudice because he was deceased and Plaintiff had failed to identify
a proper party to substitute in his place (Id.).
On April 22, 2020, the IDOC Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on
the issue of exhaustion (Doc. 63). The IDOC Defendants argue that Lawrence is entitled
to dismissal without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to identify or reference Lawrence
in any way in his grievances (Id.). The IDOC Defendants argue that Jones is entitled to
dismissal because he was only added to this case for the purpose of implementing
injunctive relief and Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction has since been dismissed and he
has no other requests for injunctive relief pending (Id.).
Plaintiff’s response to the IDOC Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was
due on or before May 26, 2020, but no response came (see Doc. 62). See also SDIL-LR 7.1(c).
On June 23, 2020, the Court entered a Show Cause Order, directing Plaintiff to show cause
Page 3 of 6
Case 3:19-cv-01051-MAB Document 71 Filed 08/17/20 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #357
on or before July 14, 2020, why the Court should not construe his failure to timely respond
to the motion for summary judgment as an admission of its merits and grant it (Doc. 69).
The Court also noted that instead of responding to the Show Cause Order, Plaintiff could
simply file a response to the motion for summary judgment (Id.). Plaintiff was specifically
warned that a failure to do either could result in the dismissal of Defendants Jones and
Lawrence for lack of prosecution pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (Id.). To date, Plaintiff
has failed to file a response of any kind to the summary judgment motion or the Show
Cause Order.
Analysis
This Court’s Local Rules specifically provide that a “[f]ailure to timely file a
response to a motion may, in the Court’s discretion, be considered an admission of the
merits of the motion.” SDIL-LR 7.1(c). And under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b),
a court may dismiss an action with prejudice “if the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to
comply with [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] or any court order.” FED. R. CIV. P.
41(b); In re Bluestein & Co., 68 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 1995) (“District courts possess the
inherent authority to dismiss a case sua sponte for want of prosecution as part of the
control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the
orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”) (internal quotations and citations
omitted).
In this instance, the Court elects to construe Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the
IDOC Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as an admission of the merits of the
motion. The IDOC Defendants motion for summary judgment demonstrates that
Page 4 of 6
Case 3:19-cv-01051-MAB Document 71 Filed 08/17/20 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #358
Lawrence is entitled to dismissal without prejudice as Plaintiff has failed to exhaust as to
him (see Doc. 63). However, dismissal of Alex Jones is not warranted at this time. A review
of Plaintiff’s Complaint, as well as, Chief Judge Rosenstengel’s Order on the preliminary
injunction reveals that Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief remains pending and was not
dismissed (see Docs. 1, 59).2 Although Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction was
denied, he may still be entitled to injunctive relief if he prevails on the merits of his claims.
The prudent course of action is to keep an official capacity defendant in the case for the
purpose of injunctive relief in the event Plaintiff ultimately succeeds. Accordingly, the
IDOC Defendants’ request to dismiss Jones (the official capacity defendant) is denied.
Finally, the Court notes that Alex Jones is no longer the warden at Menard. The
current warden at Menard is Anthony Wills. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
25(d), Mr. Wills will be substituted into this case (official capacity only) for the purpose
of implementing any future injunctive relief Plaintiff may be awarded.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the IDOC Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 62) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is
granted as to Defendant Frank Lawrence, who is DISMISSED without prejudice due to
Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. The motion is denied as to
Defendant Alex Jones. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to SUBSTITUTE Anthony
Wills, in his official capacity, for Defendant Alex Jones.
Chief Judge Rosenstengel would not have substituted Jones in as an official capacity defendant in the
same order denying Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction if Plaintiff had no other requests for
injunctive relief.
Page 5 of 6
2
Case 3:19-cv-01051-MAB Document 71 Filed 08/17/20 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #359
This matter will proceed on Count 2 and Count 3 against Dr. Mohammed Siddiqui
and Wexford Health Sources, Inc. for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
The stay on discovery on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims (see Doc. 61) is LIFTED,
and the parties can proceed with discovery. A new schedule will be entered by separate
order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 17, 2020
s/ Mark A. Beatty
MARK A. BEATTY
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 6 of 6
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?