MACKEY v. CORIZON HEALTH LLC et al

Filing 38

ENTRY - DENYING AS UNNECESSARY 31 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, GRANTING 32 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT, SCREENING AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. The clerk is directed to redocket the proposed amended com plaint, Dkt. 32-1, as the amended complaint. This action shall proceed with the amended complaint as the operative pleading in the action. The action shall proceed with Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against Defendants Byrd, Chave z, Riggs, and Talbot; and Eighth Amendment policy- or-practice claims against Corizon and Wexford. If Mr. Mackey believes that additional claims were alleged in the complaint, but not identified by the Court, he shall have through December 14, 2018 , in which to identify those claims. Claims against John Doe Medical Regional Director are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The clerk is directed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3) to issue process to Defendant Talbot in the manner specified by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 (d). Process shall consist of the amended complaint, applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry. The clerk is also directed to update the docket to reflect that Dr. Talbot is now a defendant in the action. Each defendant who has already appeared shall have through November 30, 2018, to answer the amended complaint. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/20/2018. (NAD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
CLINTON B. MACKEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORIZON HEALTH LLC,
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.,
SAMUEL J. BYRD,
MARY A. CHAVEZ,
BARBRA RIGGS,
PAUL A. TALBOT, M.D.,
Defendants.

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

No. 1:18-cv-00407-TWP-DLP

ENTRY DENYING AS UNNECESSARY MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME,
GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT, SCREENING
AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
This action is before the Court for resolution of Plaintiff Clinton Mackey’s motion for an
extension of time to file an amended complaint, Dkt. 31, and his motion for leave to file an
amended complaint, Dkt. 32. In this Entry, the Court also screens Mr. Mackey’s amended
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
I. Motion for Extension of Time
Mr. Mackey’s motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint, Dkt. [31], is
denied as unnecessary. Mr. Mackey moved for leave to file an amended complaint within the
time provided by the current pretrial schedule. See Dkts. 29, 32.
II. Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint
Mr. Mackey’s unopposed motion for leave to file an amended complaint, Dkt. [32], is
granted. The clerk is directed to redocket the proposed amended complaint, Dkt. 32-1, as the

amended complaint. This action shall proceed with the amended complaint as the operative
pleading in the action.
III. Screening
Mr. Mackey is an inmate currently confined at the Pendleton Correctional Facility (PCF).
Because Mr. Mackey 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 the amended complaint before service on the defendants.
A.

Screening Standard
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss a 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 a 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.” Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 776 (7th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation omitted).
B.

The Amended Complaint
The original complaint asserted claims regarding Mr. Mackey’s treatment for urological

symptoms while confined at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility (WVCF) and PCF between
August 2015 and February 2018. A thorough discussion of the claims and allegations presented in
the original complaint may be found in the Court’s original screening Entry, Dkt. 10.

2

The amended complaint alleges that Dr. Paul Talbot consciously disregarded and refused
to treat Mr. Mackey’s symptoms on multiple occasions between April and August 2018. See Dkt.
32-1 at ¶¶ 44–46. The amended complaint also adds as a defendant “John Doe Medical Regional
Director.” Mr. Mackey alleges that the Medical Regional Director refused to allow Mr. Mackey to
receive treatments that were recommended by Dr. Talbot and Dr. Mary Chavez. See id. at ¶¶ 39,
43.
C.

Claims That Shall Proceed
The amended complaint includes allegations sufficient to add to the action a claim that Dr.

Talbot was deliberately indifferent to Mr. Mackey’s serious medical needs in violation of his
Eighth Amendment rights. Therefore, the action shall proceed with Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claims against Defendants Byrd, Chavez, Riggs, and Talbot; and Eighth Amendment
policy-or-practice claims against Corizon and Wexford.
This summary of claims includes all viable claims identified by the Court. If Mr. Mackey
believes that additional claims were alleged in the complaint, but not identified by the Court, he shall
have through December 14, 2018, in which to identify those claims.

D.

Dismissal of Insufficient Claims
Claims against John Doe Medical Regional Director are dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted because “it is pointless to include [an] anonymous
defendant [ ] 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). Suing “John Doe” defendants is generally disfavored
by the Seventh Circuit. If, through discovery, Mr. Mackey can learn the name of the Medical
Regional Director, he may seek leave to file an amended complaint that adds a claim against him
or her.
3

IV. Summary of Claims and Actions, Issuance of Process, and Further Proceedings
Mr. Mackey’s motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint, Dkt. [31], is
denied as unnecessary. Mr. Mackey’s unopposed motion for leave to file an amended complaint,
Dkt. [32], is granted. The clerk is directed to redocket the proposed amended complaint, Dkt.
32-1, as the amended complaint. This action shall proceed with the amended complaint as the
operative pleading in the action.
The action shall proceed with Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against
Defendants Byrd, Chavez, Riggs, and Talbot; and Eighth Amendment policy-or-practice claims against
Corizon and Wexford. If Mr. Mackey believes that additional claims were alleged in the complaint,
but not identified by the Court, he shall have through December 14, 2018, in which to identify those
claims.

Claims against John Doe Medical Regional Director are dismissed for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. If, through discovery, Mr. Mackey can learn the name
of the Medical Regional Director, he may seek leave to add a claim against him or her.
The clerk is directed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3) to issue process
to Defendant Talbot in the manner specified by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d). Process shall
consist of the amended complaint, applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of
Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry. The clerk is also
directed to update the docket to reflect that Dr. Talbot is now a defendant in the action.
All the remaining defendants have already appeared in this action and will receive notice
of the amended complaint on the Court’s docket. Each defendant who has already appeared shall
have through November 30, 2018, to answer the amended complaint. After all defendants have
answered the amended complaint, the Court will issue an order concerning the schedule for further
proceedings.
4

SO ORDERED.

Date:

11/20/2018

Distribution:
CLINTON B. MACKEY
249602
PENDLETON – CF
PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
Douglass R. Bitner
KATZ KORIN CUNNINGHAM, P.C.
[e-mail]
Jeb Adam Crandall
BLEEKE DILLON CRANDALL ATTORNEYS
[e-mail]
Paul A. Talbot, M.D.
Medical Professional
Pendleton Correctional Facility
4490 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, IN 46064F

5