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.

Gevass v. Shearing

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

February 1, 2017

DAVID C. GEVAS, Plaintiff,
v.
DR. ROBERT SHEARING, WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., JEREMY BUTLER, RONALD SKIDMORE, NICKI MALLEY, KIMBERLY BUTLER, and RICHARD HARRINGTON, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL, United States District Judge

         Now pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Ronald Skidmore, Nicki Malley, Kimberly Butler, and Richard Harrington (Doc. 303). For the reasons explained below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

         Introduction

         Plaintiff David Gevas, an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections at Stateville Correctional Center, filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 6, 2014. Plaintiff alleged that he was temporarily transferred to Menard Correctional Center for two weeks in August and September 2013, and during that time, he was deprived of various prescription medications and other items, including Neurontin for chronic pain in his left leg, Motrin for chronic pain in his left shoulder, Flomax for an enlarged prostate and urination problems, Blink lubricating eye drops, multi-purpose solution for contact lenses, and a contact lens case. Plaintiff further alleged that as a result of these deprivations he suffered pain in his leg and shoulder, nausea, vomiting, insomnia, muscle jerking, frequent and uncontrollable urination, headaches, and the inability to see. He claimed that he made written and verbal requests for the items and to see a doctor, but those requests were denied by Defendants Jeremy Butler and Ronald Skidmore, who are both nurses at Menard. He further claimed that his grievances and complaints were ignored by Defendant Nicki Malley, the Health Care Unit Administrator; Kimberly Butler, the Assistant Warden; and Richard Harrington, the Warden. Plaintiff believes that the medications were denied in retaliation for a previous lawsuit and in an effort by Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (“Wexford”) to save money. Plaintiff also believes that a portion of any money saved was funneled to Defendant Robert Shearing, a doctor at Menard.

         Following a threshold review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Plaintiff was permitted to proceed on six counts:

Count 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendants Jeremy Butler, Ronald Skidmore, Nicki Malley, Dr. Robert Shearing, Kimberly Butler, and Richard Harrington for refusing to provide Plaintiff with previously-prescribed medications and denying him access to a doctor;
Count 2: Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim against Defendants Jeremy Butler, Ronald Skidmore, Nicki Malley, Dr. Robert Shearing, Kimberly Butler, and Richard Harrington for refusing to provide Plaintiff with prescription medications based on his status as a prisoner on temporary transfer to Menard from his home institution;
Count 3: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim against Wexford for promulgating a policy, practice, and custom of denying prescription medication to inmates on temporary transfer away from their home institution;
Count 4: First Amendment retaliation claim against Wexford for denying Plaintiff his necessary prescription medications because he previously filed a lawsuit against Wexford;
Count 5: Negligence claim under Illinois law against Defendants Nicki Malley, Kimberly Butler, and Richard Harrington for neglecting their duty to respond to Plaintiff's requests for prescription medications and to see a doctor;
Count 6: Medical malpractice claim under Illinois law against Defendants Dr. Robert Shearing, Kimberly Butler, Ronald Skidmore, and Nicki Malley for refusing to provide Plaintiff with his prescription medications or an examination by a doctor.

(See Doc. 5).

         On June 12, 2015, Nurse Jeremy Butler, Dr. Robert Shearing, and Wexford (“the Wexford Defendants”) filed a motion for summary judgment on Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 (Doc. 213). The Court concluded that a jury could find that Plaintiff's prostate problems, shoulder pain, leg pain, and the lack of contacts constituted serious medical conditions to which Dr. Shearing and Nurse Butler were deliberately indifferent (Count 1) (Doc. 318). Summary judgment was granted, however, in favor of Nurse Butler and Dr. Shearing on Plaintiff's equal protection claim (Count 2) and in favor of Wexford on Plaintiff's deliberate indifference and equal protection claims (Count 3) and retaliation claim (Count 4) (Doc. 318). Count 6 also was dismissed as to all Defendants (Doc. 318). In light of these rulings, the following claims remain:

Count 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendants Jeremy Butler, Ronald Skidmore, Nicki Malley, Dr. Robert Shearing, Kimberly Butler, and Richard Harrington for refusing to provide Plaintiff with previously-prescribed medications and denying him access to a doctor;
Count 2: Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim against Defendants Ronald Skidmore, Nicki Malley, Kimberly Butler, and Richar d Harrington for refusing to provide Plaintiff with prescription medications based on his status as a prisoner on temporary transfer to Menard from his home institution; and
Count 5: Negligence claim under Illinois law against Defendants Nicki Malley, Kimberly Butler, and Richard Harrington for neglecting their duty to respond to Plaintiff's requests for prescription medications and to see a doctor.

(See Doc. 318).

         Defendants Ronald Skidmore, Nicki Malley, Kimberly Butler, Richard Harrington (“the IDOC Defendants”) filed their own motion for summary judgment on November 30, 2015 (Doc. 303). There was a significant delay in Plaintiff responding to the motion because he was appointed counsel, and his deadline was extended more than once (Docs. 313, 323, 338). Plaintiff was ...


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.