Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HEGWOOD v. LEACH

August 22, 2005.

TALMON HEGWOOD, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
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, Defendants.



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 Dismiss.

BACKGROUND

  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.

  ANALYSIS

  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.

  Section 1983 Claim

  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 Amendment.

  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 § 1983.

  Section 1985 Claim

  West Suburban Hospital argues that the § 1985 claim should be dismissed because Hegwood does not allege West Suburban ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.