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.

Fox v. Ghosh

January 26, 2010

RAY A. FOX, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN ROSE FOX, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DR. P. GHOSH, TERRY MCCANN, FORMER WARDEN OF STATEVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., IVETTE SANGSTER, LPM, DAVID BARNES, CMT, SEAN ROYCROFT, JOHN BECKER, RN, ROYCE BROWN-REED, OFFICER CURTIS, OFFICER M. BREWER, OFFICER G. MALONE, UNKNOWN CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, AND UNKNOWN MEDICAL PERSONNEL, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: James F. Holderman Chief Judge, United States District Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JAMES F. HOLDERMAN, Chief Judge

Plaintiff Ray A. Fox ("Fox"), through his guardian Rose Fox, filed his First Amended Complaint ("Complaint") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dr. Partha Ghosh, Terry McCann, the former Warden of Stateville Correctional Center, Wexford Health Sources, Inc., Ivette Sangster, LPN, David Barnes, CMT, Sean Roycroft, John Becker, RN, Royce Brown-Reed, Officer Curtis, Officer M. Brewer, Officer G. Malone, Unknown Correctional Officers, and Unknown Medical Personnel for violations of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and various Illinois state laws.

Currently before this court are Defendants Wexford Health Sources, Inc. ("Wexford") and Dr. Partha Ghosh's ("Ghosh") (collectively "Wexford Defendants"), and Terry McCann's ("McCann") motions to dismiss Fox's Complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 29 & 30.) For the reasons explained below, the Wexford Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 29) is granted-in-part, and McCann's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 30) is granted-in-full.

BACKGROUND

On October 7, 2009, Fox filed his Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various defendants, including the Wexford Defendants and McCann, alleging violations of his rights under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and Illinois state laws.

Specifically, Fox alleges that "[o]n or about October 7, 2007, [he] was found unconscious in his cell [at Stateville Correctional Center] and was bleeding from his head and/or mouth." (1st Am. Compl. ¶ 11.) According to the Complaint, this incident resulted either from

(1) certain medical personnel defendants' failure to give Fox, or ensure he took, his seizure medication (id. ¶ 16), or (2) certain correctional officer defendants or a third party beating Fox without justification (id. ¶ 17). Fox further alleges that certain defendants "failed to provide him adequate and/or timely medical attention" after he sustained his initial injuries (id.), and that certain correctional officer defendants "failed to intervene to prevent the violation of Mr. Fox's constitutional rights even though they had the opportunity to do so" (id. ¶ 18). As a result of the October 2007 incident, Fox alleges that he "has suffered extensive and permanent brain damage that has, among other things, left him partially blind, unable to walk, disoriented to his surroundings, and requiring constant supervision." (Id. ¶ 21.)

According to Fox's Complaint, during the relevant time period, Wexford was a "Florida corporation under contract to the State of Illinois to furnish medical care to inmates incarcerated in the Illinois Department of Corrections" (id. ¶ 7) and "promulgated rules, regulations, policies, and procedures for the medical screening, medical treatment, and overall medical care of inmates at the Stateville Correctional Center" (id.). Defendant Ghosh, the Complaint alleges, was "employed by Wexford to provide medical services to inmates, including Plaintiff, at Stateville Correctional Center." (Id. ¶ 8.) Defendant McCann was the former Warden of Stateville Correctional Center during the period Fox sustained his alleged injuries. (Id. ¶ 5.)

The Wexford Defendants and McCann both filed motions to dismiss Fox's Complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 29 & 30.) For the reasons explained below, the Wexford Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 29) is granted-in-part, and McCann's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 30) is granted-in-full.

ANALYSIS

I. Wexford Defendants' Motion to Dimiss

A. Failure to Plead Separate Counts

In their motion to dismiss, the Wexford Defendants first challenge the form of Fox's Complaint, arguing that his failure to plead separate counts violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b) and warrants dismissal. The court disagrees. Rule 10(b) only requires that "each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in ...


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.