Bone v. McConky et al

Filing 16

ORDER FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS on NURSE AMBER, MATT McCONKY, RONNIE STEVENS, and STEVE COODY. The 1 Complaint survives screening under 28 U.S.C. 1915A. COUNTS 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 will proceed against the INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS. FAYETTE COUNTY is DISMISS ED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to TERMINATE Fayette County as a party in CM/ECF and ENTER the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Plaintiff's 4 Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 5/8/2024. (jsy)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ADAM LYNN BONE, #S11844,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MATT McCONKY,
RONNIE STEVENS,
STEVE COODY,
NURSE AMBER, and
FAYETTE COUNTY,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 24-cv-00696-JPG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT, District Judge:
Plaintiff Adam Bone, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections
and currently incarcerated at Robinson Correctional Center, brings this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the denial of adequate medical care for his congestive heart failure at Fayette
County Jail. (Doc. 1). The Complaint is subject to preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
which requires the Court to screen prisoner Complaints and filter out non-meritorious claims.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion that is legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for
relief, or requests money damages from an immune defendant must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b).
The Complaint
Plaintiff sets forth the following allegations in the Complaint (Doc. 1, pp. 7-68): Plaintiff
was denied necessary medical care for his heart condition at Fayette County Jail. Id. at 7. Before
entering the Jail, he was diagnosed with congestive heart failure, prescribed certain medications,
and ordered to consume a low sodium/low cholesterol diet. He was also instructed to record his
1

weight daily and monitor his vital signs hourly, until he could undergo open heart surgery. Id.
Plaintiff’s heart specialist advised him to schedule an appointment for open heart surgery as soon
as possible on or after January 2023. Id. at 8.
Before he could do so, Plaintiff was taken into custody at the Jail.

Id.

From

February 4, 2023 until July 2, 2023, he was provided with inadequate medical care for his heart
condition. Id. at 7. During the first two weeks of his detention, Plaintiff was not even evaluated
by the nurse, who he identifies as “Nurse Amber.” Thereafter, the nurse denied him a heart healthy
diet, hourly vital sign checks, and daily weigh-ins. Id. On four separate occasions, including
April 2-12, 2023, he was denied access to his prescription medications, including his heart, pain,
and psychotropic medications.1 Id. at 8-9. Plaintiff was also denied access to a health care provider
who was trained to care for inmates with heart issues, including those with fluctuations in blood
pressure and chest pain. When Plaintiff reported episodes of chest pain or blood pressure
fluctuations, the nurse never called him in for an examination or follow-up appointment. Id.
Plaintiff requested care directly from all of the defendants or filed grievances addressed to
them, including Nurse Amber, Chief Deputy Steve Coody, Jail Administrator Matt McConky, and
Sheriff Ronnie Stevens, to no avail. They were all aware of his medical needs and simply ignored
his complaints. Id.
Based on the allegations summarized herein, the Court designates the following
enumerated counts in the pro se Complaint:
Count 1:

Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendants for failing
to evaluate Plaintiff’s heart-related medical issues during the first 14 days
of his detention at the Jail.

1

This first incident occurred just after his release from the hospital, where he was treated for heart-related
chest and back pain and given prescription medications that were in his personal property. Id. at 8.

2

Count 2:

Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendment claims against Defendants for
denying Plaintiff adequate medical care and monitoring for his congestive
heart failure at the Jail from February 4, 2023 through July 2, 2023, in the
form of a heart-healthy diet, daily weigh-ins, and hourly vital sign checks.

Count 3:

Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendants for failing
to schedule Plaintiff for open heart surgery in spite of their knowledge that
surgery was recommended to occur in January 2023.

Count 4:

Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendants for their
failure to administer Plaintiff his prescription medications for his heart,
pain, and mental health conditions.

Count 5:

Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendants for their
failure to staff the Jail with on-site medical providers who were available to
address complaints of chest pain and/or blood pressure fluctuations or
follow up with Plaintiff after such episodes.

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.
Discussion
The Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendment govern(s) all five claims in this action, and the
applicable legal standard depends on the plaintiff’s status when each claim arose. The Eighth
Amendment governs claims of inadequate medical care brought by a convicted person. Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976). The Fourteenth Amendment controls claims brought by a
pretrial detainee. McCann v. Ogle Cty., Ill., 909 F.3d 881, 886 (7th Cir. 2018).
In order to survive screening under the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must set forth
allegations showing that (a) he suffered from an objectively serious medical need; (b) each
defendant knew of the serious medical need and exhibited deliberate indifference to it; and (c) the
plaintiff was injured. Stockton v. Milwaukee Cnty., 44 F.4th 605, 614 (7th Cir. 2022). An
objectively serious medical need is one that has been diagnosed by a physician as requiring
treatment or one where the need for treatment would be obvious to a lay person. Gayton v. McCoy,

3

593 F.3d 610, 620 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hayes v. Snyder, 546 F.3d 516, 522 (7th Cir. 2008)).
Deliberate indifference occurs where a defendant “know[s] of and disregard[s] an excessive risk
to inmate health.” Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2005).
To proceed with a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, a plaintiff must set forth
allegations suggesting that each defendant acted purposefully, knowingly, or perhaps even
recklessly in connection with a detainee’s medical treatment, and the challenged conduct was
objectively unreasonable. McCann, 909 F.3d at 886. When determining whether challenged
conduct was objectively unreasonable, the Court considers “the totality of the facts and
circumstances faced by the individual alleged to have provided inadequate medical care.” Id.
Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 survive screening under both standards against Nurse Amber, Chief
Deputy Steve Coody, Jail Administrator Matt McConky, and Sheriff Ronnie Stevens. For each,
Plaintiff alleges that his direct care provider (Nurse Amber) delayed or denied him treatment for a
serious health condition (congestive heart failure or nerve pain) and caused his condition to
deteriorate or prolonged his pain. Plaintiff directly grieved each issue, repeatedly, to Chief Deputy
Steve Coody, Jail Administrator Matt McConky, and Sheriff Ronnie Stevens and asserts that these
defendants knowingly disregarded his requests for treatment, monitoring, surgery, and care.
Counts 1 through 5 will proceed past screening against all individual defendants.2
Fayette County shall be dismissed. A Monell claim arises against a municipality when a
policy, custom, or widespread practice of the municipality actually caused the deprivations of a
plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Monell v. Dept. of Social Services of the City of New York, 436
U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Miranda v. County of Lake, 900 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 2018). Plaintiff describes
no policy, custom, or widespread practice on the part of Fayette County that resulted in a

2

The parties can clarify which legal standard governs each claim during discovery.

4

constitutional deprivation, and the County cannot be held liable under § 1983 simply because one
or more county employees violated the plaintiff’s rights.

See Monell, 436 U.S. at 691.

Accordingly, Counts 1 through 5 shall be dismissed against the county.
Pending Motion
Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 4) is DENIED without prejudice. An indigent
plaintiff seeking representation by court-recruited counsel must demonstrate: (a) reasonable efforts
to locate counsel on his own; and (b) an inability to litigate the matter without representation. See
Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff has demonstrated reasonable efforts to
find an attorney since filing this motion. (Docs. 12-14). However, he has not shown the Court
that he actually requires the assistance of court-recruited counsel at this time. Plaintiff has
competently represented himself to date, by filing a Complaint that survived screening on five
claims under the Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendment(s).

He offers only one reason for

requesting counsel, i.e., he is “not adept at matters of law, civil or criminal.” (Doc. 4). For now,
there is very little for the plaintiff to do, while the defendants are served with this lawsuit and file
their answers. Once answers are on file, the Court will enter a scheduling order with specific
instructions and deadlines for litigation. If the case becomes too difficult to litigate after that time,
Plaintiff may file a new motion.
Disposition
IT IS ORDERED that the Complaint (Doc. 1) survives screening. COUNTS 1, 2, 3, 4,
and 5 will proceed against NURSE AMBER, MATT McCONKY, RONNIE STEVENS, and
STEVE COODY, but these claims are DISMISSED without prejudice against FAYETTE
COUNTY for failure to state a claim for relief against this defendant.

5

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to TERMINATE Fayette County as a party in
CM/ECF and ENTER the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
IT IS ORDERED that as to COUNTS 1 through 5, the Clerk of Court shall prepare for
Defendants NURSE AMBER, MATT McCONKY, RONNIE STEVENS, and STEVE
COODY: (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
the Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
If a Defendant can no longer 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 or
disclosed by the Clerk.
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
Administrative Order No. 244 and Rule 8.2, Defendants need only respond to the issues
stated in this Merits Review Order.

6

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, whether or not
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 14 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: 5/8/2024
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
United States District Judge

7

Notice
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 appearances and file Answers to your Complaint. It will likely take at least 60 days
from the date of this Order to receive the defendants’ Answers, but it is entirely possible that it
will take 90 days or more. The Court will then 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, in order to give the defendants notice and
an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed before the defendants’ counsel files an
appearance will generally be denied as premature. The plaintiff need not submit any evidence to
the court at this time, unless otherwise directed by the Court.

8