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.

Taylor v. Sutterer

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

December 9, 2019

PARIS TAYLOR, #N64077, Plaintiff,
v.
RYAN SUTTERER, MOHAMMED SIDDIQUI, WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCE, INC., and FRANK LAWRENCE, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Paris Taylor, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”), brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that he has been denied adequate medical treatment for his chronic vision problems. Following preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Plaintiff was allowed to proceed on the following claim.:

Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants for exhibiting deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's chronic vision problems.

         Menard's warden was added to the docket in his official capacity because it appeared Plaintiff might be seeking prospective injunctive relief.

         Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 31) and a proposed First Amended Complaint. In the motion, Plaintiff states he wants to make a claim for injunctive relief and add the Warden of Menard as a defendant for that claim. He also seeks to add a Monell claim against Wexford and expand the factual basis for that claim. Defendants oppose the motion (Doc. 32) on the basis that the First Amended Complaint does not add a new defendant or new claim as the Warden of Menard is already a defendant and there is a Monell claim proceeding against Wexford. They also argue that it is not necessary for Plaintiff to add a claim for injunctive relief because that issue is raised in Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction.

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) states that “the court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Nonetheless, the First Amended Complaint is still subject to review under Section 1915A.[1] Accordingly, prior to granting leave to amend, the Court will screen the First Amended Complaint.

         The First Amended Complaint

         Plaintiff realleges the allegations from the Complaint, which are summarized in the Court's merit review order dated April 17, 2019 (Doc. 8) and will not be repeated here. Plaintiff adds the following allegations in the First Amended Complaint: On May 11, 2018, Plaintiff woke up with a severe headache and blurry vision in his right eye. He sought medical attention. The cell house nurse immediately sent him to an ophthalmologist. The ophthalmologist determined that he had high pressure in his right eye and recommended emergency surgery. Wexford Health Resources, Inc. medical staff at Menard was informed of the need for emergency surgery.

         Wexford and its employees attempted to avoid scheduling the surgery. Plaintiff was forced to file emergency grievances on June 5 and 18, 2018, in an attempt to receive the medical treatment needed for his right eye. The Warden accepted the grievances and ordered an expedited review. Wexford unreasonably delayed the surgery. Plaintiff suffered severe headaches, blurry vision, and his daily activities were effected until he finally received the surgery.

         Plaintiff needs new eyeglasses because he strains to see with his current glasses that he received in 2010 and 2013. This strain causes pressure to increase in his eyes, which is counterproductive to the surgical procedures he has had on his eyes.

         Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. He wants “updated/appropriate glasses” and “to receive all the care/treatment plans that the specialist at Quantum Visions instructed the Plaintiff must have to prevent him from suffering undue pain and ultimately losing his vision.”

         Discussion

         Based on the allegations in the First Amended Complaint, the Court designates the following claims:

Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against Sutterer and Siddiqui for exhibiting deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's ...

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.