The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN W. DARRAH, District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Talmon Hegwood Jr. ("Hegwood"), a pro se Plaintiff, filed
suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against
Defendants Charles Leach, Jill Stevens, Richard Doroniuk,
Mahmaud Shamah, John M. Chavez, Sargent Shields, Rick Schmitz,
Frank DeBoni, Thomas Riley, Diana Garcia-Carmillo, West Suburban
Hospital, and six unknown Chicago police officers alleging
conspiracy to violate Plaintiff's civil rights under
42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986. Subsequently, West Suburban Hospital
removed the action to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Presently
pending before the Court is West Suburban Hospital's Motion to
A reading of Hegwood's Complaint supports the following summary
of the alleged conduct of the parties. Hegwood, an African American, was arrested for allegedly
possessing less than fifteen grams of cocaine. Following
Hegwood's arrest and booking, Chicago Police Officers Charles
Leach and Jill Stevens brought Hegwood to West Suburban
Hospital's emergency room. Hegwood observed two of the
Defendants, Sargent Shields and Dr. Rick Schmitz, engaged in a
conversation when he arrived to the emergency room. Dr. Schmitz
would later treat Hegwood in West Suburban Hospital's emergency
room. Hegwood requested that Schmitz take x-rays of his jaw. Dr.
Schmitz refused to order the x-rays. After examining Hegwood's
jaw and prescribing Tylenol, Dr. Schmitz discharged Hegwood from
West Suburban Hospital. Hegwood alleges West Suburban Hospital
participated with the Chicago police and other defendants in a
conspiracy to violate Hegwood's civil rights.
In reviewing a motion to dismiss, the court reviews all facts
alleged in the complaint and any inferences reasonably drawn
therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Marshall-Mosby v. Corporate Receivables, Inc., 205 F.3d 323,
326 (7th Cir. 2000). A plaintiff is not required to plead the
facts or the elements of a claim, with the exception found in
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema,
534 U.S. 506, 511 (2002); Walker v. Thompson, 288 F.3d 761, 764
(7th Cir. 2002). A filing under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
need not contain all the facts that will be necessary to prevail.
It should be "short and plain," and it suffices if it notifies
the defendant of the principal events. See Hoskins v. Poelstra,
320 F.3d 761, 764 (7th Cir. 2003). Dismissal is warranted only if
"it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of
facts in support of its claims that would entitle him to relief."
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). The "suit should
not be dismissed if it is possible to hypothesize the facts,
consistent with the complaint that would make out a claim."
Graehling v. Village of Lombard, Ill, 58 F.3d 295, 297 (7th Cir. 1995). The simplified notice pleading relies upon
liberal discovery and summary of motions to define disputed
issues and facts and to dispose of unmeritorious claims. See
Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 513.
West Suburban Hospital presents several arguments as to why
most of Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed.
West Suburban Hospital argues that the § 1983 claim should be
dismissed because Hegwood fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
"In order to state a claim under § 1983 a plaintiff must allege
that the defendants deprived him of a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, and that the
defendants acted under color of state law." Brokaw v. Mercer
County, 235 F.3d 1000, 1009 (7th Cir. 2000); Starnes v. Capital
Cities Media, Inc., 39 F.3d 1394, 1396 (7th Cir. 1994). To
determine whether Hegwood's stated a cause of action under §
1983, the Court must determine whether West Suburban Hospital's
alleged conduct deprived Hegwood of a right secured by the
Constitution. Hegwood alleges West Suburban Hospital
"intentionally, willfully, and maliciously failed to provide
Hegwood with x-rays for his visible injury" because he is an
African-American. Hegwood sufficiently alleges West Suburban
Hospital deprived him of equal protection under the Fourteenth
West Suburban Hospital also argues the § 1983 claim should be
dismissed against it because Hegwood has not alleged that West
Suburban Hospital acted under the color of law.
A plaintiff need only allege private individuals are jointly
engaged with state officials in the prohibited action. Adickes
v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 152 (1970). "To act under
color of law does not require that the accused be an officer of
the State. It is enough that he is a willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents."
Adickes, 398 U.S. at 152 (citing United States v. Price,
398 U.S. 787, 794 (1966)). Hegwood alleges West Suburban Hospital
"conspired with [Officers] Leach, Stevens, Sargent Shields, and
others known and unknown to Hegwood" to deprive Hegwood of equal
protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Hegwood also alleges
he was refused a proper examination of his injuries because of
his race. Accordingly, Hegwood states a cause of action under §
West Suburban Hospital argues that the § 1985 claim should be
dismissed because Hegwood does not allege West Suburban ...