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.

Watkins v. Ghosh

United States District Court, Seventh Circuit

July 9, 2013

ERIC WATKINS, Plaintiff,
v.
PARTHA GHOSH MD, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHARLES P. KOCORAS, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Eric Watkins's ("Watkins") motion for sanctions against Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc. ("Wexford"). Additionally Defendant Doctor Evaristo Aguinaldo's ("Dr. Aguinaldo") moves to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, Watkins's motion is denied and Dr. Aguinaldo's motion is granted.

BACKGROUND

Watkins is an Illinois state prisoner, confined at the Stateville Correctional Center ("Stateville") at all times relevant to this action. Dr. Aguinaldo was a staff physician at Stateville in 2006, but retired from the prison on an unspecified date.

In February 2006, Watkins was using gym equipment to lift weights when a cable snapped causing the machines weights to drop to the floor with such force that Watkins fell backwards, injuring his back. On June 30, 2011, Watkins filed an amended complaint alleging inadequate medical treatment and deliberate indifference to his back injury in violation of 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. Watkins's amended complaint indicated that between February 16, 2006 and March 11, 2006 he was seen by Dr. Aguinaldo and wrote several letters to him.

On November 28, 2011, this Court dismissed Dr. Aguinaldo as a defendant due to Watkins's failure to name Dr. Aguinaldo in any grievance concerning his medical care. The Court determined that Watkins was aware of Dr. Aguinaldo's identity prior to filing his grievances but failed to name him in his grievances. Watkins additionally did not offer any explanation for Dr. Aguinaldo's omission.

Seeking to cure his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies concerning Dr. Aguinaldo, Watkins filed a second set of grievances in October 2012 with the Illinois Department of Correction ("IDOC") which named Dr. Aguinaldo as the perpetrator of substandard medical treatment related to the February 2006 gym accident injury.

On March 12, 2013, Watkins, now represented by counsel, filed a second amended complaint renaming Dr. Aguinaldo as a defendant and realleging his allegations concerning the quality of the medical care provided by Dr. Aguinaldo. On May 20, 2013, Dr. Aguinaldo filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

LEGAL STANDARD

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is used to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Hallinan v. Fraternal Order of Police of Chi. Lodge No. 7, 570 F.3d 811, 820 (7th Cir. 2009). When reviewing a motion to dismiss, the court accepts as true all the factual allegations pled in the complaint and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Id. Pursuant to Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, ' sufficient to provide the defendant with fair notice' of the claim and its basis." Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1084 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Additionally, the allegations in the complaint must "actually suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief, by providing allegations that raise a right to relief above a speculative level." Tamayo, 526 F.3d at 1084 (emphasis in original).

DISCUSSION

I. Watkins's Motion for Sanctions against Wexford

As a preliminary matter Watkins moves for sanctions against Wexford and requests that fees be imposed. Watkins asserts that he should be reimbursed for the expenses he incurred in filing the instant motion for sanctions concerning Wexford's noncompliance with discovery requests. On February 21, 2013, Wexford produced a 152-page copy of its Contract for Services with the State of Illinois ("Contract"). Pursuant to an agreed protective order that both parties agreed on the Contract was to be produced in an unredacted form. However, the Contract which Wexford ultimately turned over had two sections which were redacted, due to its use as discovery in an unrelated case. Instead of contacting Wexford and informing them of their error, Watkins moved for sanctions.

In seeking a courts intervention in discovery disputes between parties, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d) requires a simple statement that the movant has conferred in good faith with its opponent. Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 37.2 requires the movant to submit a statement that after consultation and after good faith attempts to resolve discovery differences they are not able to reach an agreement about the production of discovery. Watkins failed to make any good faith attempts to resolve this dispute. Compounding the problem Watkins immediately filed the instant motion for ...


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.