United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
ANTONIO M. BOGAN, #R29595, Plaintiff,
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, and JOHN DOE 3, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, CHIEF JUDGE:
Antonio M. Bogan, 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. Bogan claims Defendants,
Wexford Health Sources (“Wexford”) and John Does
1-3 (members of Wexford's utilization management team)
have denied and/or delayed necessary medical treatment for a
painful cyst in his throat. He seeks monetary damages and
injunctive relief in the form of surgery to relieve the
swelling and pain in his throat.
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): In
December 2018, while Lawrence was on lockdown, Bogan's
throat swelled to three times its normal size. (Doc. 1, p.
9). During the lockdown, Bogan submitted numerous requests
for treatment, all of which went unanswered. Id.
Five to eight days later, when the lockdown ended, Bogan was
examined by a physician. Id. The physician ordered
blood tests and prescribed oral antibiotics, injectable
antibiotics, and Ibuprofen. Id. Approximately six
days later, a nurse practitioner examined Bogan. Id.
She told Bogan he had a thyroid abscess and prescribed
additional antibiotics and Ibuprofen. Id. The
initial treatment provided some relief, however, the pain and
swelling soon returned. Id. Accordingly, the nurse
practitioner ordered an ultrasound. Id. at p. 10.
January 31, 2019, after experiencing additional difficulties
obtaining treatment, Bogan filed an emergency grievance.
(Doc. 1, pp. 10, 15-16). The warden deemed the grievance an
emergency and, on February 11, 2019, Bogan was examined by an
outside specialist. (Doc. 1, pp. 10, 17). The specialist told
Bogan he had a cricoid cyst and would need surgery to relieve
the pain and swelling. He also said that Bogan needed an MRI
prior to proceeding with surgery. Id.
could not obtain an MRI without approval from Wexford's
utilization management team members (John Does 1-3).
Id. Accordingly, over the next few weeks, Bogan
repeatedly sought approval for an MRI. (Doc. 1, pp. 10-11,
18-22). On April 2, 2019, after filing a second emergency
grievance, Bogan finally received an MRI. (Doc. 1, p. 11).
After completing the MRI, however, Bogan received no
additional treatment and, as of the date of filing, had not
been approved for surgery. Id.
to Bogan, John Does 1-3 are subject to liability for
repeatedly denying and/or delaying necessary treatment for
his cricoid cyst (an MRI and surgery, as recommended by the
outside specialist). He also claims that Wexford and John
Does 1-3 are subject to liability because they have a
“practice of denying or delaying medical treatment of
serious medical needs.” Id. As a result, Bogan
claims he has experienced, and continues to experience,
unnecessary pain and suffering. Id.
on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court designates a
Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against
Wexford Health Sources and John Does 1-3 for deliberate
indifference to Bogan's serious medical needs regarding
his cricoid cyst.
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 John Does 1-3 delayed and/or denied
necessary medical treatment (an MRI and surgery), as
recommended by a specialist, causing unnecessary ...