United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MICHAEL THOMPSON, No. B-81126, Plaintiff,
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., DOCTOR RITZ, DOCTOR FEINERMAN, DOCTOR SHEPHERD, DOCTOR FAHIM, DOCTOR SHEARING, and DOCTOR TROST, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Phil Gilbert United States District Judge
Michael Thompson, an inmate in Menard Correctional Center
(“Menard”), brings this action for deprivations
of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiff contends officials at Menard were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical condition
(Crohn's disease). In connection with these claims,
Plaintiff Wexford Health Sources, Inc., Doctor Ritz, Doctor
Feinerman, Doctor Shepherd, Doctor Fahim, Doctor Shearing,
and Doctor Trost. Plaintiff sues all defendants in their
individual and official capacities. Plaintiff seeks monetary
damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.
case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:
(a) Screening - The court shall review, before docketing, if
feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after
docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner
seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for Dismissal - On review, the court shall
identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any
portion of the complaint, if the complaint-
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
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). Frivolousness is an
objective standard that refers to a claim that any reasonable
person would find meritless. Lee v. Clinton, 209
F.3d 1025, 1026-27 (7th Cir. 2000). 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. At
this juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se
complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v.
Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir.
Complaint survives preliminary review under this standard.
arrived at Menard in November 2008. (Doc. 1, p. 2). Plaintiff
informed medical staff that he suffered from Crohn's
disease and that he took medication for the same.
Id. Plaintiff explained that one of his medications,
Remicade, was critical for controlling the flare-ups
associated with his condition and prevented his disease from
escalating. Id. Medical staff elected not to
prescribe Remicade. Id. Instead, Plaintiff was
treated with a less effective medication. Id. The
selected treatment barely addressed Plaintiff's pain and
never alleviated the symptoms of his condition. Over the next
eight years, medical staff ignored Plaintiff's medical
needs associated with his condition and continued to provide
only ineffective treatment options. (Doc. 1, pp. 2-3).
inadequate medical care exacerbated Plaintiff's symptoms
and escalated the disease. (Doc. 1, p. 3). Specifically,
Plaintiff states the severity of the following symptoms
increased: (1) bloating, (2) stomach cramps/spasms, (3)
vomiting, (4) body aches, (5) hot and cold sweats, (6) loss
of sleep, (7) loss of appetite, and (8) severe weight loss
(from 190 to 135 lbs). Id. Plaintiff contends the
ineffective treatment was the equivalent of providing no
medical care whatsoever. (Doc. 1, pp. 2-3).
2015, Plaintiff stayed in the infirmary at Menard's
Healthcare Unit (“HCU”) on two occasions and was
hospitalized at outside facilities on two occasions for
severe flare-ups (Chester Hospital and Carbondale Hospital).
(Doc. 1, p. 3). Specialists at Carbondale hospital indicated
that Plaintiff's condition was severe and recommended
specific follow-up treatment, including surgery. Id.
The specialists specifically advised that Plaintiff's
condition had deteriorated so much, further treatment would
be ineffective and surgery was the only option. Id.
Dr. Trost ignored the recommendations, took no action, and
refused to appeal the Collegial Review Board's denial of
Plaintiff's request for surgical treatment.
April 19, 2016, Plaintiff was taken to an outside hospital
for an emergency surgery. (Doc. 1, p. 3). A significant
portion of Plaintiff's large intestine was removed during
the surgery. Id. This led to a bladder infection
that caused waste to be excreted through Plaintiff's
urethra. Id. Following the April 2016 surgery,
Plaintiff was ...