United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Reona J. Daly, United States Magistrate Judge
matter has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge
Reona J. Daly by United States District Judge Nancy J.
Rosenstengel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B),
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and SDIL-LR 72.1(a)
for a Report and Recommendation on the Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 25) filed by Defendant Butalid. It is
RECOMMENDED that the District Court
ADOPT the following findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and Defendant's Motion be
Deon Davis, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), filed this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his
constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated
at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”). He is
proceeding on the following count:
Count 1: Dr. John Doe, Dr. Butalid, and Nurse Practitioner
Moldenhauer were deliberately indifferent under the Eighth
Amendment for their treatment of Plaintiff's hand and
Complaint filed by Plaintiff makes the following allegations
against Defendant Butalid, “On December 15, 2016,
Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Dr. Butalid at the
Institutional Health Care Unit and Plaintiff informed
Defendant Butalid that Plaintiff is still experiencing severe
pain in Plaintiff's left hand, wrist with spasms and
numbness in Plaintiff's fingers. Plaintiff then requested
to Defendant Butalid that Plaintiff be examined by a medical
hand specialist. Defendant Dr. Butalid responded it would
have to be approved being deliberate indifference to
Plaintiff's need with culpable state of mind violating
Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights” (Doc. 1 at
Butalid filed a motion to dismiss arguing that
Plaintiff's allegations against him are limited to the
one statement on December 15, 2016 about the treatment
requested requiring approval. Butalid argues Plaintiff failed
to state any personal involvement by Butalid in
Plaintiff's alleged deprivation. Butalid further argues,
in prison litigation cases, seeking approval for specialty
treatment outside the prison is not sufficient to state a
deliberate indifference claim.
filed a Response (Doc. 33) arguing his Complaint sufficiently
alleged Dr. Butalid was aware of Plaintiff's serious hand
and wrist injury and failed to provide adequate medical
treatment. Plaintiff further argues the allegations against
Butalid should be read as a whole, and the allegations
against Butalid should not be extricated from his allegations
against the other medical Defendants.
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the
sufficiency of the complaint, not its merits. Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6); Gibson v. City of Chicago, 910 F.2d 1510,
1520 (7th Cir. 1990). In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all well- pleaded facts
in the plaintiff's complaint and draws all reasonable
inferences from those facts in the plaintiff's favor.
AnchorBank, FSB v. Hofer, 649 F.3d 610, 614 (7th
Cir. 2011). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the complaint
must not only provide the defendant with fair notice of a
claim's basis, but must also be facially plausible.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct.
1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); see also Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d
929 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
Plaintiff's allegations against Butalid may be sparse and
inartfully pleaded, they are sufficient to state a claim of
deliberate indifference. District Courts are required to give
pro se litigants a fair amount of leeway when filing
complaints. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520,
92 S.Ct. 594, 595, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). It is clear from
Plaintiff's Complaint that he alleges he sought, but did
not receive, medical treatment from Dr. Butalid for his
injured wrist and hand.
foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that
Defendant Butalid's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 25) be
DENIED; and that the Court adopt the
foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law.
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and SDIL-LR 73.1(b), the
parties shall have fourteen (14) days after service of this
Report and Recommendation to file written objection thereto.
The failure to file a timely objection may result in the
waiver of the right to challenge this Report and
Recommendation before either the District ...