United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. Yandle United States District Judge
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.
an initial screening of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, Plaintiff was allowed to proceed on the
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.
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. (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
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave to amend
should be freely given when justice so requires.
Plaintiff's motion is timely and complies with Local Rule
15.1. As the Amended Complaint is also subject to review
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,  the Court will screen the
proposed Amended Complaint in accordance with this statute in
conjunction with its consideration of Plaintiff's Motion.
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.
with the characterizations in the Amended Complaint, the
Court designates the following claims in this pro se
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
Count 4:Eighth Amendment claim against
Wexford, Lashbrook, and Baldwin for turning a blind eye to
the inadequate medical treatment provided to ...