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.

Wilson v. Wexford Health Services

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

December 30, 2019

VARRON WILSON, #B57716, Plaintiff,
v.
WEXFORD HEALTH SERVICES, MENARD CORRECTIONAL CENTER, and NURSE MOLLY, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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

         Plaintiff Varron Wilson, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) who is currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”), brings this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights. Wilson claims that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need in failing to provide treatment for a spider bite. He seeks monetary damages.

         The Complaint is now before the Court for preliminary review pursuant to 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). The Court must also consider whether any claims are improperly joined and subject to severance or dismissal. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).

         The Complaint

         Wilson makes the following allegations in the Complaint: In February 2018, he was bitten by a spider on his left side. (Doc. 1, p. 5). He put in two request slips to sick call regarding the bite and informed nurses on several occasions that the bite wound was becoming worse and spreading. After two weeks, Nurse Molly came to see him, but he still did not see a nurse practitioner until two days later. By this time, he was in so much pain that it was hard to move his upper body, and he had multiple boils. (Id. at pp. 5-6). He was sent to the healthcare unit where he was given an IV, but staff could not figure out what he had. (Id. at p. 6).

         Preliminary Dismissal

         Wilson names Wexford Health Services (“Wexford”) in the case caption, but he does not assert any allegations against Wexford in the body of the Complaint. Plaintiffs are required to associate specific defendants with specific claims, so that defendants are put on notice of the claims brought against them and can properly answer the complaint. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Where a plaintiff has not included a defendant in his statement of the claim, the defendant cannot be said to be adequately put on notice of which claims in the complaint, if any, are directed against him or her. Merely invoking the name of a potential defendant is not sufficient to state a claim against that individual. See Collins v. Kibort, 143 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1998). Additionally, Wexford “cannot be held liable under § 1983 unless the constitutional violation was caused by an unconstitutional policy or custom of the corporation itself.” Shields v. Ill. Dep't of Corr., 746 F.3d 782, 789 (7th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, Wexford will be dismissed from this action without prejudice.

         Menard also is listed as a defendant and will be dismissed with prejudice. Menard, which is a division of IDOC, is not a “person” within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act and so it cannot be sued pursuant to Section 1983. Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).

         Discussion

         Based on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to designate the claims in this case into the following Count:

Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against Nurse Molly for deliberate indifference to Wilson's serious medical need of treatment for his spider bite.

         The 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 should be considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under the Twombly pleading standard.[1]

         Count 1

         The Eighth Amendment “imposes a duty on government officials to provide medical care to prisoners.” Townsend v. Cooper, 759 F.3d 678, 689 (7th Cir. 2014) (citing Estelle v. Gamble,429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976)). Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment when they respond to a prisoner's serious medical needs with deliberate indifference. Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 750 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104). For screening purposes, Wilson's spider bite, which resulted in boils, irritation, and pain, will be considered a ...


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.