DIRING v. WEXFORD MEDICAL et al

Filing 26

ENTRY Screening Amended Complaint, Dismissing JOHN DOES, RACHEL H. (Director of Medical), STANLEY KNIGHT (Superintendent), CHASITY (RN) and JANE DOES for insufficient claims, and directing service of process. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/15/2017 (dist made)(CBU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER J. DIRIG,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WEXFORD MEDICAL,
RACHEL H. Director of Medical,
STANLEY KNIGHT Superintendent,
CHASITY, JOHN DOES, JANE DOES,
Defendants.

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

No. 1:17-cv-02165-TWP-DML

ENTRY SCREENING AMENDED COMPLAINT, DISMISSING
INSUFFICIENT CLAIMS, AND DIRECTING SERVICE OF PROCESS
I. Background
The plaintiff, Christopher J. Dirig (“Mr. Dirig”), is a prisoner formerly incarcerated at
Plainfield Correctional Facility (“Plainfield”) and currently incarcerated at Westville
Correctional Facility. Because the plaintiff is a “prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h),
this Court has an obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) to screen his complaint before service
on the defendants. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss the complaint if it
is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief. In determining whether the complaint states a claim,
the Court applies the same standard as when addressing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). To
survive dismissal,
[the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
claim for relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Pro se complaints such as that filed by the plaintiff
are construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers. Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 491 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008).
II. Screening
The amended complaint filed on July 24, 2017, shall be the operative complaint. Dkt.
15. Mr. Dirig’s claims are brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Based on the caption and on the
proposed summons attached to the amended complaint, docket 15-1, the Court liberally
construes the amended complaint as naming the following defendants: 1) Wexford Medical; 2)
Rachel H, Director of Medical; 3) Nurse Chastity, R.N.; 4) Nurse Katie; 5) Nurse Becky L, LPN;
6) Dr. Polar, Director of Medical; and 7) John and Jane Does. Mr. Dirig seeks compensatory
damages.
Allegations
Mr. Dirig alleges that he sustained a serious and painful injury on June 1, 2017, when a
400 pound chest press machine fell backwards causing him to smack his head and neck on the
concrete floor and causing massive swelling. Shortly after his injury, he was taken to Nursing.
He complained of extreme pain in his head and neck area. Nurse Katie failed to examine him or
contact a provider. She only took his vitals. A little later, correctional officers called Nursing and
told Nurse Katie that Mr. Dirig was unable to walk and was vomiting nonstop. Nurse Katie told
the officer to have Mr. Dirig lay down and rest and place a cold towel on his head. Not satisfied
with that response, the officer called his supervisor who directed him to take Mr. Dirig back to
Nursing.
Upon Mr. Dirig’s arrival in a wheelchair at Nursing, Nurse Becky L asked why Mr. Dirig
was brought there because he had already been seen. Nurse Becky L was not happy that the

correctional officer’s supervisor had ordered him to bring Mr. Dirig to Nursing without calling
first. Nurse Becky L failed to inform a nearby provider that Mr. Dirig needed to be seen. Rather,
she only checked Mr. Dirig’s oxygen levels and said that there was “nothing more Nursing can
do for you. Have a nice day.” Nurse Becky L also said, “This is not Corizon Medical any more.
Wexford won’t allow me to give you anything. They have strict rules.” Dkt. 15, p. 4. Mr. Dirig
left Nursing without being referred to a provider, without being examined, and without any
treatment or pain medication.
Mr. Dirig alleges that he still has not been provided any treatment. He cannot walk, stand
or sit without a wheelchair, cane or walker. His head and neck area are swollen and he
experiences severe pain.
Insufficient Claims
The claims against John and Jane Does are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted because “it is pointless to include lists of anonymous defendants in
federal court; this type of placeholder does not open the door to relation back under Fed.R.Civ.P.
15, nor can it otherwise help the plaintiff.” Wudtke v. Davel, 128 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 1997)
(internal citations omitted). If Mr. Dirig learns the identity of additional defendants in the future,
he may file a motion to amend his complaint by adding allegations and claims against those
individuals (and attaching a proposed second amended complaint that includes all of his claims
in a single document).
The claims against Rachel H., Director of Medical, Nurse Chastity, RN, and Dr. Polar are
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because there are no
allegations of wrongdoing asserted against them.

The claim against Wexford Medical, the private company newly contracted to provide
medical services to Indiana prisoners, is construed as a claim that its policies or practices caused
the on-site medical staff not to provide adequate treatment for Mr. Dirig’s injuries. This claim of
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need under the Eighth Amendment shall proceed.
The claims against Nurse Katie and Nurse Becky L, LPN, are construed as having denied
Mr. Dirig treatment for a known serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
These claims shall proceed.
If the plaintiff believes that additional claims were alleged in the amended complaint but
not identified by the Court, he shall have through August 31, 2017, in which to identify those
claims.
III. Summary and Service of Process
Given the foregoing, the following claims shall proceed: deliberate indifference claims
against Wexford Medical, Nurse Katie, and Nurse Becky L, LPN. All other claims are dismissed
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The clerk shall terminate
defendants Rachel H, Stanley Knight, Chastity RN, and John and Jane Doe from the docket and
shall add to the docket defendants Nurse Katie and Nurse Becky L, LPN.
The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendants
Wexford Medical, Nurse Katie and Nurse Becky L, LPN, in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ.
P. 4(d). Process shall consist of the amended complaint (docket 15), applicable forms (Notice of
Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons),
and this Entry.
A courtesy copy of this Entry shall be mailed or emailed to Douglas R. Bitner.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 8/15/2017

Distribution:
CHRISTOPHER J. DIRING, 157156
WESTVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
Douglass R. Bitner
Cassiday Schade LLP
111 N. 6th Street
Springfield, IL 62701
[e-mail]
Wexford Medical
c/o Registered Agent, Douglas P. Long
500 N. Meridian Street, Suite 300
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Nurse Katie (Plainfield Correctional Facility)
c/o Wexford Medical
c/o Registered Agent, Douglas P. Long
500 N. Meridian Street, Suite 300
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Nurse Becky L, LPN (Plainfield Correctional Facility)
c/o Wexford Medical
c/o Registered Agent, Douglas P. Long
500 N. Meridian Street, Suite 300
Indianapolis, IN 46204
NOTE TO CLERK: PROCESSING THIS DOCUMENT REQUIRES ACTIONS IN ADDITION TO DOCKETING AND DISTRIBUTION.