United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Phil Gilbert United States District Judge.
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
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).
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.
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.
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
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
on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to designate a single count in this pro
Count 1: Dr. Shah was deliberately indifferent under the
Eighth Amendment in treating Plaintiff's shoulder pain.
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