United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
JERRY L. HUDSON, SR., Y-28171, Plaintiff,
SAMUEL NWAOBASI, ROBERT SHEARING, and WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
6, 2018, Plaintiff Jerry L. Hudson, Sr., an inmate of the
Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”)
currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center
(“Menard”), filed this pro se action for
deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims Defendants have
exhibited deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs, and he seeks monetary and injunctive relief (specific
medical care and referral to a specialist).
Complaint (Doc. 1) is now before the Court for a preliminary
review pursuant to Section 1915A. Under § 1915A, the
Court is required to screen prisoner complaints to filter out
non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a). Any portion of a complaint that is legally
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seeks money damages from a
defendant who by law is immune from such relief, must be
dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). At this juncture, the
factual allegations in the pro se complaint are to
be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth
Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
November 2012, Plaintiff was very ill and had developed a
large mass on his back. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Dr. Shearing told
Plaintiff the mass was scar tissue and not cancerous.
Id. Plaintiff was admitted to the infirmary, where
he remained for five months, without a diagnosis or
treatment. Id. During that time, Plaintiff was in
severe pain and was rapidly losing weight. Id. Dr.
Shearing prescribed nutritional drinks (because Plaintiff
could not eat) and Prednisone. Id. Dr. Shearing also
told Plaintiff the only thing he could do was try to make him
comfortable. Id. Plaintiff was released from the
infirmary in April 2013; by that time, he had lost 80 pounds
and could not walk. Id.
August 2013, as Plaintiff's condition worsened, he
requested a biopsy and x-rays. Id. Dr. Shearing
denied his requests. Id. Instead, he directed Dr.
Nwaobasi to surgically remove the mass, which was the size of
a baseball. Id. According to Plaintiff, the surgery
was performed in a room that was not properly sterilized and
without anesthesia. (Doc. 1, pp. 5, 7) Plaintiff also claims
that Dr. Nwaobasi is not a licensed surgeon and should not
have performed the surgery. (Doc. 1, p. 8).
the surgery, Plaintiff claims he was “still sick,
” and he was told nothing more could be done. (Doc. 1,
p. 7). In October 2014, Plaintiff was sent to an outside
hospital for high calcium levels. Id. He remained
there for three days and was told he “could have
died.” Id. In December 2014, Plaintiff was
sent to an outside hospital with congestive heart failure and
pneumonia. Id. Plaintiff remained in this hospital
for nine days and was in a coma for three of those days.
Id. Plaintiff also claims that he was subsequently
diagnosed with the following conditions: (1) sarcoidosis; (2)
diabetes; (3) Hodgkin's lymphoma; (4) kidney disease; (5)
heart disease; (6) back and shoulder problems; (7) pulmonary
disease; and (8) bone cancer melanoma (Doc. 1, p. 6).
to Plaintiff, he is “still fighting” to get help
for his medical needs. Id. Further, although he was
approved to see an oncologist and a pulmonary doctor, no
appointments have been scheduled, and, as of July 3, 2018,
Plaintiff was still waiting to see one or more outside
specialists. (Doc. 1, pp. 6, 9). Plaintiff has submitted
numerous grievances and requests to Dr. Siddique (not a
defendant in this action) and Wexford. Id. Wexford
has denied Plaintiff's requests. (Doc. 1, p. 6)
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the pro se action into a single
1: Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants for
exhibiting deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious
accepting Plaintiff's factual allegations as true, the
Court finds that the Complaint states a colorable federal
claim as to Dr. Shearing and Dr. Nwaobasi. The Complaint
describes a serious medical condition (a baseball sized mass,
severe pain, weight loss, and inability to eat or walk).
See Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir.
2005); Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1373 (7th
Cir. 1997). Plaintiff also has alleged that Dr. Shearing and
Dr. Nwaobasi responded with deliberate indifference to his
medical condition. See e.g., Perez v.
Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 777-79 (7th Cir. 2015);
Hayes v. Snyder, 546 F.3d 516, 522-24 (7th Cir.
2008); Guiterrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1373 (7th
other hand, however, the Complaint fails to state a claim as
to Wexford. Plaintiff does not identify a policy or present
facts showing that a Wexford policy was the “moving
force” behind any alleged constitutional violation.
Wilson v. Cook Cty., 742 F.3d 775, 779 (7th Cir.
2014) (quoting Teesdale v. City of Chicago, 690 F.3d
829, 833 (7th Cir. 2012)).
these reasons, Count 1 shall receive further review as to Dr.
Shearing and Dr. Nwaobasi. However, Count 1 shall be