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.

Fields v. Caruso

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois

September 22, 2016

ANTHONY FIELDS, Plaintiff,
v.
DR. CARUSO, et. al., Defendants.

          CASE MANAGEMENT OPINION

          SUE E. MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         The pro se Plaintiff, a state prisoner, originally filed a complaint alleging Defendants at both the Danville Correctional Center and Pontiac Correctional Center were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical condition. See Fields v Edwards, Case No. 16-2108. Specifically, Plaintiff claimed he suffered with pustules to his scalp and body, but he was denied medical care. After review of Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court determined Plaintiff was attempting to combine unrelated claims against different Defendants in one lawsuit. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Therefore, the Court severed Plaintiff's claims concerning his care at Pontiac Correctional Center into this lawsuit. See Fields v Edwards, Case No. 16-2108, May 17, 2016 Case Management Order.

         Plaintiff was given additional time to clarify whether he wanted to pursue a second lawsuit, and if so, to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has complied and has filed an amended complaint.

         This case is now before the Court for review of the claims in Plaintiff's amended complaint pursuant to § 1915A. The Court accepts the factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in Plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2103). However, conclusory statements and labels are insufficient. Enough facts must be provided to "'state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'" Alexander v. U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(quoted cite omitted).

         ALLEGATIONS

         The Plaintiff has identified eight Defendants including Dr. Caruso, Dr. Tilden, Nurse Megan, Nurse Amy, Officer S. Prentice, Assistant Warden Shull, Wexford Health Sources, and Pontiac Correctional Center.

         Plaintiff says on November 13, 2015, he complained to Defendant Nurse Amy about his “infection, ”but she told him there was nothing she could do for him and refused to provide any treatment. (Amd. Comp., p. 3). Plaintiff says he then sent requests for medical care to Dr. Tilden, Dr. Caruso and Nurse Megan, but no one would respond to him or provide any additional care.

         Plaintiff also says he sent requests for medical treatment to Warden Shull and Major Prentice, but he did not receive a response. Finally, Plaintiff says Wexford Health Sources did not provide him with the “the right medical treatment.” (Amd. Comp., p. 8)

         ANALYSIS

         To demonstrate a violation of his constitutional rights, Plaintiff must show he suffered from a serious medical need and the Defendant was deliberately indifferent to that need. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976); Hayes v. Snyder, 546 F.3d 516, 522 (7th Cir. 2008). The Court notes it is unclear whether he suffered from a serious medical condition at Pontiac Correctional Center, but the Court must liberally construe the alleged facts in Plaintiff's favor. Therefore, Plaintiff has articulated an Eighth Amendment violation against Medical Defendants Dr. Caruso, Dr. Tilden, Nurse Megan, and Nurse Amy for the purposes of notice pleading.

         However, Plaintiff has not adequately alleged how the two correctional officers are responsible for his medical claim. Plaintiff says he sent each a written, medical request. However, Plaintiff does not allege either Defendant is a member of the medical staff, nor does he allege this is the procedure to obtain medical care, nor does he allege either officer received his request. The Court cannot infer Assistant Warden Skull or Correctional Officer Prentice had any involvement in Plaintiff's medical care based on the facts alleged.

         In addition, Wexford can only be held liable for deliberate indifference to a serious medical condition if the corporation had had a policy or practice that caused the violation. Woodward v Corr. Medical Serv. of Illinois, Inc., 368 F.3d 917, 927 (7th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff has failed to make such an allegation and therefore has failed to state a claim against Wexford.

         Finally, Pontiac Correctional Center is not a proper Defendant as it is not a “person' subject to liability under §1983. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989); Tenn ...


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.