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.

Mamon v. M. Siddiqui

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

November 1, 2019

ANDRE MAMON, #M09351, Plaintiff,
v.
M. SIDDIQUI, JACQUELINE LASHBROOK, DR. SMITH, DR. RITZ, WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., and DR. VIPIN SHAH, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Staci M. Yandle United States District Judge

         Plaintiff Andre Mamon, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) who is currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”), brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims he sustained a serious head injury when he slipped and fell on wet stairs at Menard, developed a hemangioma tumor that was accompanied by headaches and blurred vision, was denied treatment for a year, and that the tumor ultimately ruptured and required emergency surgery.

         Following an initial screening of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Plaintiff was allowed to proceed on the following claim:

Count 2:Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Siddiqui, Shah, Smith, Ritz, Wexford, and Lashbrook for responding with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's complaints of headaches, blurred vision, and a painful tumor on his head from March 2017 until April 2018.

(Doc. 8, pp. 5-6). Pursuant to the Initial Scheduling and Discovery Order, Plaintiff had until September 3, 2019 to file a motion for leave to amend the Complaint to include any additional claims or parties. (Doc. 41, pp. 2-3). Plaintiff's Motion and proposed Amended Complaint were belatedly transmitted to the Court on September 27, 2019, through no fault of Plaintiff, and were entered effective August 6, 2019. (See Docs. 58, 62). The Court denied the Motion because the proposed amendment violated Local Rule 15.1. (Doc. 62). However, Plaintiff was granted additional time to bring the proposed Amended Complaint into compliance with the Local Rule. See SDIL-LR 15.1.

         On October 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed another Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. 63) in which he seeks to assert additional claims and names additional parties. All defendants except Jacqueline Lashbrook filed a Response objecting to the proposed amendment on the basis that it represents an entirely new Complaint that adds claims and parties not already involved in the action, and that an amendment at this stage-following submission of motions for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion-would be unfairly prejudicial.[1] (Doc. 64). Defendant Lashbrook filed a Motion to Join Co-Defendants' Objections. (Doc. 65). Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. 63) and Defendants' Responses (Doc. 64 and 65) are now before the Court.

         Amended Complaint

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave to amend should be freely given when justice so requires. Plaintiff's motion is timely[2] and complies with Local Rule 15.1. As the Amended Complaint is also subject to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, [3] the Court will screen the proposed Amended Complaint in accordance with this statute in conjunction with its consideration of Plaintiff's Motion.

         In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts 8 separate claims against the previously identified defendants (Wexford, Siddiqui, Shah, Ritz, Smith, Lashbrook) and 5 additional individuals (John Baldwin, Moldenhauer, Angela Crain, Kelly Pearce, and John Doe (unknown doctor)). However, the factual allegations offered in support of these claims are substantially the same as those he set forth in the original Complaint. Plaintiff still alleges that he was denied adequate and timely medical care for his hemangioma tumor, headaches, and blurred vision, and he identifies additional policies that allegedly caused the delay in his treatment.

         Consistent with the characterizations in the Amended Complaint, the Court designates the following claims in this pro se action:

Count 1:Eighth Amendment claim against Wexford for delaying Plaintiff's medical care for a hemangioma tumor, headaches, and blurry vision by instituting a policy of understaffing the prison healthcare unit.
Count 2:Eighth Amendment claim against Wexford, enforced by Siddiqui, Shah, Moldenhauer, Ritz, and Smith, for unnecessarily prolonging Plaintiff's pain and suffering associated with his hemangioma tumor, headaches, and blurred vision by instituting a policy of providing inadequate pain medication to inmates.
Count 3:Illinois state law claim against Wexford, Siddiqui, Shah, Ritz, Moldenhauer, Smith, and John Doe #1 for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on Plaintiff.
Count 4:Eighth Amendment claim against Wexford, Lashbrook, and Baldwin for turning a blind eye to the inadequate medical treatment provided to ...

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.