United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
JAMES F. WEBB, # B40022, Plaintiff,
STEPHEN DUNCAN, MR MOORE, MRS TREADWAY, PHILIP MARTIN, MRS CUNNINGHAM, DR. JOHN COE, MR JAMES, ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD, MR HORTON, LAWRENCE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, WEXFORD HEALTH SERVICES INC., STATEVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, A VYAS, LESLIE MCCARTY, UNKNOWN PARTIES, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF ILLINOIS, MRS NEW, and ONE RADIOLOGY, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE U.S. District Judge.
James Webb, who is currently on parole from Big Muddy
Correctional Center, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (Doc. 1, p. 1). According to the Complaint,
X-rays ordered by doctors at Stateville Correctional Center
in early February 2015 showed Plaintiff had a large soft
tissue mass on his hand. (Doc. 1, p. 19). The Complaint
further alleges that Dr. John Coe reviewed X-rays taken of
Plaintiff's injuries on March 27, 2015, after Plaintiff
was transferred to Lawrence Correctional Center. Only after
Plaintiff was transferred to Big Muddy Correctional Center in
October 2015 and put under the care of Dr. Blicholf in
February 2016 was he allegedly told that his hand had giant
cell tumors requiring surgery without which he would lose his
finger. (Doc. 1, pp. 21-22). As of March 3, 2016, the
allegations in the Complaint imply that Plaintiff had yet to
receive the surgery that was deemed necessary by medical
professionals. (Doc. 1, p. 23). As a result, Plaintiff
endured over one year of pain. (Doc. 1, p. 4).
Complaint, Plaintiff maintains that twenty parties are liable
for violating his right to receive adequate care under the
Eighth Amendment and under Illinois state law. (Doc. 1, p.
19). Plaintiff has named a number of medical staff,
administrative staff and counselors at Lawrence, including
Dr. John Coe, Mr. James, an unknown nurse on the prison's
medical staff, Mrs. Cunningham, Philip Martin, Mr. Horton,
Mrs. New, Warden Duncan, Warden Moore, Warden Treadway and an
unnamed grievance officer. (Id.) He has also named
the Lawrence Correctional Center and the Stateville
Correctional Center as defendants, as well as the State of
Illinois, the Illinois Department of Corrections, the
Illinois Administrative Review Board, an employee of the
Board, Wexford Health Services, an outside company named One
Radiology and an employee of One Radiology. (Id.)
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. (Doc. 1, p. 24).
Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section
1915A, the Court is required to promptly screen prisoner
complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims and to
dismiss any portion of the Complaint that is legally
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a
defendant who by law is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a) and (b).
action or claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable
basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An action fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not
plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The claim of
entitlement to relief must cross “the line between
possibility and plausibility.” Id. at 557.
Conversely, a complaint is plausible on its face “when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
the Court is obligated to accept factual allegations as true,
see Smith v. Peters, 631 F.3d 418, 419 (7th Cir.
2011), some factual allegations may be so sketchy or
implausible that they fail to provide sufficient notice of a
plaintiff's claim. Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574,
581 (7th Cir. 2009). Courts “should not accept as
adequate abstract recitations of the elements of a cause of
action or conclusory legal statements.” Id. At
the same time, however, the factual allegations of a pro
se complaint are to be liberally construed. See
Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821
(7th Cir. 2009). Based on these standards, Plaintiff's
Complaint survives preliminary review, in part.
to the Complaint, after being arrested on December 1, 2014,
Plaintiff requested medical care from the Princeton Police
Department for injuries to his hand and lower back. (Doc. 1,
p. 19). Though he was scheduled to receive treatment, he was
transported to Stateville before it could be completed.
(Id.) While a prisoner at Stateville, a large soft
tissue mass was discovered on Plaintiff's hand and/or
finger on approximately February 9, 2015 after X-rays were
conducted. (Id.) Before he received further
treatment at Stateville, Plaintiff was transported to
Lawrence. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he submitted
a request for medical treatment of his hand and lower back
the day he arrived at Lawrence, on February 27, 2015, but
that he was not called to have X-rays done until March 25,
2015. (Doc 1, p. 20).
alleges that Defendant Dr. John Coe met with him on March 27,
2015 and stated that he had received a report on the X-rays
from Defendant One Radiology which indicated that Plaintiff
had his injuries as far back as 2012. (Id.)
Plaintiff met with Dr. Coe again on June 1, 2015 and Dr. Coe
allegedly stated he would not take any action to fix
Plaintiff's hand. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges Dr.
Coe was hostile and authoritative during this conversation,
and that, because Dr. Coe refused to treat him, Plaintiff
filed a grievance against him for inadequate medical
treatment on September 16, 2015. According to Plaintiff, the
grievance was returned because, “they felt my pain and
suffering due to doctor John Coe of the treatment of my hand
was not an emergency to them.” (Doc 1, pp. 20-21).
further alleges that Dr. Coe continued his abuse in later
visits, during which he delayed treating Plaintiff, claiming
that more tests needed to be done and, eventually, told
Plaintiff there was nothing wrong with his finger, despite
Plaintiff allegedly being “in a state of pain all the
time.” (Doc. 1, pp. 4, 21). Plaintiff filed another
grievance on October 10, 2015 for inadequate medical
treatment and unprofessional conduct by Dr. Coe. (Doc. 1, p.
14, 2015, Plaintiff was transported to Big Muddy River
Correctional Center where he allegedly requested treatment
for his hand and back and filed another grievance “for
not responding back.” (Doc. 1, pp. 21-22). Plaintiff
received a referral from Dr. Larson for treatment of his
finger, and in November 2015, received an ultrasound and was
informed that he would be allowed to consult with an outside
physician for his condition. (Doc. 1, p. 22).
February 12, 2016, Plaintiff was informed by Dr. Eleanor
Blicholf that he had giant cell tumors on his hand and/or
finger and would need surgery in order to save his finger.
(Id.) The last treatment reported by Plaintiff in
his Complaint occurred in early March 2016 when he was
transported to Saint Louis University Hospital and met with
Dr. Bruce Kraemer. (Doc. 1, p. 23). Plaintiff alleges that he
was in pain “all the time” from his condition.
(Doc. 1, p. 4).
sues a total of twenty defendants -- eleven Lawrence
officials, various private and government entities and
employees. He asserts an Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference to medical needs claim against them. (Doc. 1, p.
19). He also seeks this Court's jurisdiction over a
medical malpractice/negligence claim related to these events.
Plaintiff requests monetary damages against Defendants in an
Court begins its § 1915A review with a note about the
parties at issue in this case. Throughout his Complaint,
Plaintiff refers to the conduct of some individuals not named
in his caption or his defendant list. Specifically, he states
that he complained to or was treated by a Princeton Police
Department deputy and nurse, a Stateville doctor, Dr. Claude
Owikotipm, Dr. Larson, Dr. Eleanor Blicholf and Dr. Bruce
Kraemer. Given that Plaintiff has taken great pains to name a
number of officials as defendants, the Court does not
construe Plaintiff's Complaint as naming these
individuals as defendants. Because these parties are not
listed in Plaintiff's caption by name or by Doe
designation, they will not be treated as defendants in this
case and any claims against them should be considered
dismissed without prejudice. See Myles v. United
States, 416 F.3d 551, 551-52 (7th Cir. 2005) (defendants
must be “specif[ied] in the caption”).
to the allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint, the Court
finds it proper to divide the remaining claims into the
following counts. The parties and the Court will use these
designations in all ...