Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Heisch v. Lakin

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

August 29, 2019

EVA DEANN HEISCH, #90649, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN LAKIN, CHRISTOPHER EALES, JORDAN GRIFFIN, DR. ARENDELL, DR. LOCHARD, and DR. ARAGONA, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          J. PHIL GILBERT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Eva Heisch, a detainee at Madison County Jail (“Jail”), brings this action for miscellaneous deprivations of her constitutional rights at the Jail pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docs. 1 and 1-1). She seeks declaratory judgment and money damages. (Doc. 1, p. 21). The Court previously reviewed the Complaint and severed four improperly joined claims (Counts 6, 7, 8, and 11) into two additional cases. The remaining claims (Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 10) are subject to preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, the Court is required to screen prisoner complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. 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). At this juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).

         The Complaint

         In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she received inadequate medical care at the Jail from 2016 until 2019. (Doc. 1, pp. 11-20; Doc. 1-1, pp. 1-195). She specifically complains of inadequate treatment for high blood pressure, a prolapsed urethra, a vaginal mass, other masses, chest pain, diabetes, and mental health conditions. (Doc. 1, pp. 12-17; 19-20). Plaintiff claims the Jail's doctors (Drs. Arendell, Aragona, and Lochard), administrators (Sheriff John Lakin and Jail Administrator Christopher Eales), and/or staff (Officer Jordan Griffin) ignored, delayed, or denied her requests for treatment. (Id.). The Court previously organized the claims into the following counts, consistent with Plaintiff's designation of the same in the Complaint:

Count 1: Eales, Griffin, Arendell, and Lakin denied Plaintiff necessary medical care for her high blood pressure which caused her to suffer a minor stroke in December 2018. (Doc. 1, p. 12).
Count 2: Arendell, Lochard, Aragona, and Eales delayed diagnosis and treatment of Plaintiff's vaginal mass and prolapsed urethra for eight months from October 2018 until April 2019, resulting in unnecessary pain and bleeding. (Id. at pp. 12-13).
Count 3: Lochard, Aragona, and Eales denied Plaintiff adequate and timely medical treatment for chest pain in April 2019, despite her previous diagnosis with angina and mitral valve prolapse. (Id. at pp. 13-14).
Count 4: Aragona denied Plaintiff adequate medical treatment for diabetes following her diagnosis in October 2018. (Id. at pp. 15-16).
Count 5: Arendell supervised staff who denied Plaintiff treatment for a mass she initially reported in September 2016. (Id. at pp. 16-17).
Count 9: Aragona took Plaintiff off of her blood pressure medication(s) in May 2019. (Id. at pp. 19-20).
Count 10: Aragona required Plaintiff to take psychotropic medications against her will in October and December 2018. (Id. at p. 20).

         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.

         Discussion

         Because Plaintiff's claims arose during her pretrial detention at the Jail, the Fourteenth Amendment governs her medical claims. Budd v. Motley, 711 F.3d 840, 842 (7th Cir. 2013). In order to determine whether each claim satisfies the applicable standard, the Court must conduct a two-part inquiry. McCann v. Ogle Cty., Ill., 909 F.3d 881, 886 (7th Cir. 2018) (Miranda v. County of Lake, 900 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 2018)). The Court first asks whether “the medical defendants acted purposefully, knowingly, or perhaps even recklessly when they considered the consequences of their handling of [plaintiff's] case.” Id. (quoting Miranda, 900 F.3d at 353). Negligence is not enough to satisfy the standard. Id. The second step requires the Court to ask whether the challenged conduct was objectively reasonable. Miranda, 900 F.3d at 354. When construing the allegations ...


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.