United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MICHAEL M. MIHM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
proceeding pro se, at the Hill Correctional Center
(Hill), files a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
13 Defendants, alleging excessive force, deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs and, perhaps
medical malpractice. The Court is required by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A to “screen” Plaintiff's
complaint, and through such process to identify and dismiss
any legally insufficient claim, or the entire action if
warranted. In reviewing the complaint, the court accepts the
factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in the
plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d
645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013). While the pleading standard does
not require “detailed factual allegations”, it
requires “more than an unadorned,
Wilson v. Ryker, 451 Fed.Appx. 588, 589 (7th Cir.
2011) quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). Enough facts must be provided to “state a claim
for relief that is plausible on its face.”
Alexander v. U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir.
is an experienced litigator who has filed 13 cases in the
past three years. Plaintiff reveals that he has previously
litigated several claims alleging deliberate indifference in
the treatment of his 2014 right shoulder and left biceps
injuries. Plaintiff files this complaint, alleging in part,
that he has received inadequate treatment for these injuries
since July 2017.
pleads that on an unidentified date in July 2017, he was
walking close to a hand ball court when a ball went out of
bounds. Plaintiff hit the ball and felt a “pop”
in his right shoulder, accompanied by pain. Plaintiff sought
medical treatment and was referred to physical therapist,
Defendant Dr. McEwan, whom he had seen previously. Defendant
McEwan prescribed a “double pillow, ” which,
Plaintiff claims, Defendant Administrator Lindorff refused to
unidentified date, Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Dr.
Bautista. Dr. Bautista agreed to renew Plaintiff's
special needs permanents, not otherwise identified, and to
issue a permit that Plaintiff be cuffed only with
“belly-chains.” While it is not clear, it appears
that a belly-chain permit would allow Plaintiff to be cuffed
from the front, rather than the back. Regardless, Plaintiff
claims that Dr. Bautista failed to order the permit, leaving
him at risk of injury.
January 2018, Plaintiff complained to Dr. Bautista that the
physical therapy was causing him increased pain. Dr. Bautista
thereafter requested a collegial review to discuss referring
Plaintiff to a specialist and sending him for an MRI.
Plaintiff alleges that the request was denied by Defendant
Dr. Garcia, a Wexford supervisor.
6, 2018, Plaintiff was to be temporarily transferred to the
Danville Correctional Center on a court writ. At the time,
Hill was on a Level 1 lockdown, and Defendant Warden Dorothy
had ordered that all inmates be cuffed from behind. Officer
Tracey, not a party, prepared Plaintiff for transport and
advised him to turn around so he could be handcuffed.
Plaintiff indicated that he could not be cuffed from the
back, asking that the officer check with Defendant Bautista.
Officer Tracy left momentarily and when he returned,
indicated that Defendant Lieutenant Carothers had approved
Plaintiff being cuffed from the front.
Tracy thereafter escorted Plaintiff to the foyer where they
were met by Defendant Lieutenant Ford. Defendant Ford
demanded that Plaintiff be handcuffed from the back and,
despite Plaintiff's protests, forcefully handcuffed him.
Plaintiff claims that when his arms were placed behind his
back, he felt a pop and experienced extreme pain in his right
shoulder. When he asked Defendant Ford to take him to the
healthcare unit, Defendant refused. Instead, Plaintiff was
directly transported to Danville. Plaintiff claims that
Danville staff ordered physical therapy, but otherwise left
him to suffer.
20, 2018, Plaintiff was transferred back to Hill. Plaintiff
asserts that he submitted nursing sick call requests but was
not seen until November 2018. He does not indicate, however,
to whom he submitted the requests. When Plaintiff was seen in
November 2018, Defendant Dr. Garcia approved a referral to an
outside orthopedist, Dr. Schierer. Plaintiff claims, however,
that Dr. Shearer was the same surgeon who had operated on
“the wrong shoulder” on June 9, 2016.
was subsequently seen by Dr. Shearer on an unidentified date.
At that time, Defendant Shearer apparently told Plaintiff he
would not re-operate on the right shoulder. Plaintiff
allegedly pointed out to Defendant that he had previously
operated on the left, not the right shoulder as there was no
surgical scar on the right. Plaintiff indicates that
Defendant Shearer apologized, and he believes the apology was
an admission that Defendant had operated on the wrong
shoulder. Defendant thereafter undertook an MRI, finding that
right rotator cuff surgery was indicated. Plaintiff does not
reveal when, and if, the surgery was undertaken.
summarily alleges, without detail, that Defendant Nurse
Practitioner Steele and Defendant Nurse Young and Defendant
Lindorff repeatedly denied him access to medical care. He
also implicates Defendant Dorethy as deliberately indifferent
for allegedly finding that he had been treated appropriately,
perhaps a reference to her having denied his grievances.
plaintiff may only join several defendants in one suit if all
claims arise out of a single transaction and contain a
question of fact or law common to all the defendants.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a); Davis v. Harding, 12-cv-559,
2013 WL 6441027, at *2 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 9, 2013). Here, the
court finds that Plaintiff attempts to assert a series of
unrelated claims in one complaint. He alleges that in July
2017, Defendant Lindorff failed to provide him a double
pillow which had been ordered by Dr. McEwan. He claims that
on an unidentified date, Dr. Bautista failed to order a
belly-chain permit and that on another unidentified date, Dr.
Garcia refused to authorize a referral and MRI. Plaintiff
also alleges a June 6, 2018 excessive force claim against
Defendant Ford in which he names Defendant Carothers,
asserting only that Defendant Carothers allowed Plaintiff to
be cuffed from the front as he wanted.
also appears to allege an Eighth Amendment or, perhaps, a
medical malpractice action against Defendant Dr. Schierer,
for operating on the wrong shoulder in 2016. Plaintiff does
not assert, however, that Defendant Schierer was a state
actor, at the times alleged. Reynolds v. Jamison,
488 F.3d 756, 764 (7th Cir. 2007) (plaintiff in Section 1983
action must show that the constitutional violation was
committed by a person acting under the color of state law).
As a result, he does not plead an Eighth Amendment claim.
Even if it were otherwise, if Plaintiff was aware in 2016
that Defendant Schierer had operated on the wrong shoulder,
the claim appears beyond the statute of limitations. See
Woods v. Illinois ...