Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Diaz v. Wexford, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

June 26, 2019

MARIO DIAZ, Plaintiff,


          J. Phil Gilbert United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff Mario Diaz, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) who is currently incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center (“Lawrence”), brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. He asserts claims against the defendants under the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.

         This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 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 asks for money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

         The Complaint

         In his Complaint, Plaintiff makes the following allegations: Plaintiff suffers from Parkinson's Disease. Prior to transferring to Lawrence, he was receiving a prescription drug for his condition three times a day. (Doc. 1, p. 5). When he transferred to Lawrence, however, he was only given the drug twice a day. In April 2018, he was seen by two Jane Doe nurses (Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) who asked him why he was only taking two doses of the drug. He informed them that he did not know why he was not receiving the third dose and that he had put in several requests to the healthcare unit about the issue and never received a response. (Id.).

         Plaintiff also began having pain in his right shoulder. He put in several requests to see the doctor beginning in May 2018. (Doc. 1, p. 6). He saw a nurse on June 4, 2018 and she put in a request for Plaintiff to see the doctor, but the call pass was ultimately canceled. He received x-rays of his right shoulder on June 20, 2018 but subsequent call passes to the healthcare unit were cancelled. (Id.). He also put in several requests to be seen for his shoulder pain but never received a response. He was given ibuprofen in October, but the medication did not help his pain. (Id. at p. 7). He finally saw Dr. Shah on December 7, 2018 and Plaintiff informed him about the prior surgery on his right shoulder and his continued pain. (Id. at p. 5). Dr. Shah provided Plaintiff a cream for the pain. (Id. at p. 7). He ran out of the cream one week later and informed the healthcare unit in a note that the cream was not helping.

         Preliminary Dismissals

         Although Plaintiff identifies several Jane Doe nurses throughout his Complaint he fails to allege that they acted with deliberate indifference in treating his conditions. He alleges that two Jane Doe nurses inquired about his Parkinson's medication, but he fails to allege that they treated his condition with deliberate indifference. Instead, they merely inquired as to why he was taking only two doses of the medication when he was prescribed three. As Plaintiff fails to allege any deliberate indifference on the part of the Jane Doe nurses, the Court DISMISSES them without prejudice.

         As to Wexford, Inc., although Plaintiff identifies Wexford in the caption of his Complaint, he fails to include any allegations against it in his statement of claim. A corporation can be held liable for deliberate indifference if it had a policy or practice that caused the alleged violation of a constitutional right. Woodward v. Corr. Med. Serv. of Ill., Inc., 368 F.3d 917, 927 (7th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff, however, fails to point to any policy or practice that caused any violation of his constitutional rights. Accordingly, Wexford, Inc. is also DISMISSED without prejudice.


         Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to designate a single count in this pro se action:

Count 1: Dr. Shah was deliberately indifferent under the Eighth Amendment in treating Plaintiff's shoulder pain.

         The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. Any other claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under the Twombly pleading standard.[1]

         Coun ...

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.