United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Brian Tully, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”), who is currently
incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center
(“Lawrence”), brings this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Tully claims that
Defendants have provided him inadequate medical treatment
regarding a shoulder injury he sustained prior to
incarceration. He seeks monetary damages and injunctive
relief in the form of shoulder replacement surgery.
Court must review the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Under Section 1915A, any portion of a complaint that is
legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or requests 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).
makes the following allegations in the Complaint (Doc. 1):
Prior to incarceration, he received partial shoulder surgery
in February 2017. Two months following surgery, he reinjured
the shoulder and visited a specialist who recommended that
the shoulder be replaced. Because he was arrested later that
same month, Tully did not receive the surgery. Upon admission
to Lawrence, he notified medical staff of increased pain and
reduced mobility in his shoulder. He was referred to an
outside doctor who told him that he was going to receive
shoulder replacement. Dr. Ritz, who is employed by Wexford
Health Sources, approved the recommendation, but as of March
2019, the surgery had still not been scheduled. Id.
at p. 6.
informed the chief medical officer at Lawrence, Dr. Pittman,
that his surgery had not been scheduled, and she told him
there was nothing she could do other than to extend his
physical therapy. His physical therapy, however, was wrongly
scheduled for his back, not his shoulder. Id. at pp.
initial matter, the Court notes that the only allegation
against the Director of IDOC, John Baldwin, is that he is
ultimately responsible for enforcing inmates' Eighth
Amendment right to adequate health care. (Doc. 1, p. 7). A
defendant cannot be held liable, however, merely because he
or she is an administrator or supervisor. Kinslow v.
Pullara, 538 F.3d 687, 692 (7th Cir. 2008). “[T]o
be liable under § 1983, the individual defendant must
have caused or participated in a constitutional
deprivation.” Pepper v. Vill. of Oak Park, 430
F.3d 806, 810 (7th Cir. 2005). And so, because Tully is
attempting to hold Baldwin liable solely because he is in a
supervisory position, he shall be dismissed without
on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court designates a
Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against
Wexford Health Source and Dr. Pittman for deliberate
indifference to Tully's serious medical needs regarding
his injured shoulder.
parties and the Court will use this designation 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 is
considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled
officials may be liable for an Eighth Amendment violation if
they are “deliberately indifferent to prisoners'
serious medical needs.” Arnett v. Webster, 658
F.3d 742, 750 (7th Cir. 2011). A condition is considered
sufficiently serious if the failure to treat it could result
in the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. See
Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1373 (7th Cir.
1997). Additionally, “[d]eliberate indifference may
occur where a prison official, having knowledge of a
significant risk to inmate health or safety, administers
‘blatantly inappropriate' medical treatment,
Edwards v. Snyder, 478 F.3d 827, 831 (7th Cir.
2007), acts in a manner contrary to the recommendation of
specialists, Arnett, 658 F.3d at 753, or delays a
prisoner's treatment for non-medical reasons, thereby
exacerbating his pain and suffering.” Perez v.
Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 777 (7th Cir. 2019)(citing
McGowan v. Hulick, 612 F.3d 636, 640 (7th Cir.
allegations that Dr. Pittman, despite the recommendations of
specialists, was deliberately indifferent to his shoulder
injury by failing to ensure he received adequate and timely
treatment causing increase pain and ...