United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
PHIL GILBERT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dorian Brown, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) who is
currently incarcerated at Hill Correctional Center
(“Hill”),  brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights at
Shawnee Correctional Center (“Shawnee”). (Doc.
1). Plaintiff claims he was denied adequate medical treatment
for leg and knee injuries he sustained while working on a
trailer at Shawnee on February 3, 2017. (Id. at pp.
3-5). He seeks money damages and injunctive relief against
Dr. David and Wexford Health Sources, Inc.
(“Wexford”). (Id. at pp. 6-7). Following
denial of his request for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, Plaintiff paid his full filing fee for this
action on November 25, 2019.
Complaint is now ripe for review under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A, which requires the Court to screen prisoner Complaints
and filter out non-meritorious claims. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a). Any portion of the Complaint that is legally
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or
requests money damages from an immune defendant must be
dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
makes the following allegations in the Complaint (Doc. 1, pp.
3-5): While working at Shawnee on February 3, 2017, Plaintiff
fell through the bed of a trailer and injured both knees and
legs. (Id. at p. 3). He immediately sought treatment
in the prison's health care unit (HCU). (Id.).
Because he suffered from intense pain, swelling, and
immobility, a nurse and doctor (Dr. David) held him for
overnight observation in the HCU. (Id. at p. 4). Dr.
David ordered ibuprofen for pain and x-rays for diagnosis of
his injuries. (Id.). Although the x-rays were
negative for fractures, Plaintiff continued to report
excruciating pain that was unabated by ibuprofen.
February 3, 2017 until July 27, 2017, Plaintiff repeatedly
met with Dr. David and other medical staff to discuss his
consistent and increasing pain. (Id.). He reported
difficulty standing, walking, and sitting. (Id.).
When Plaintiff specifically asked Dr. David for an MRI, the
doctor refused his request. (Id.). When Plaintiff
asked him about Wexford's policy regarding the medical
review and referral process, Dr. David ignored his inquiry.
David instead referred Plaintiff for physical therapy.
(Id.). Although he followed the physical
therapist's recommendations, Plaintiff continued to
report significant pain. (Id. at p. 5). When
physical therapy ultimately proved ineffective, Plaintiff
asked the physical therapist for his medical opinion.
(Id.). The physical therapist explained that neither
he, nor anyone else, could give Plaintiff an informed opinion
without an MRI. (Id.). He explained that an x-ray
could not detect injuries to his tendons or ligaments.
(Id.). Dr. David nevertheless ordered two more sets
of x-rays and reported the same negative results to
continues to live in pain. (Id.). Ibuprofen does
nothing to stop it. (Id.). He seeks money damages
and injunctive relief against Dr. David and Wexford,
including an MRI and treatment. (Id. at pp. 6-8).
on the allegations, the Court finds it convenient to
designate the following claims in the pro se
Count 1: Dr. David exhibited deliberate
indifference to Plaintiff's knee and leg injuries in
violation of the Eighth Amendment when he refused to
adequately treat the injuries.
Count 2: Wexford has an unconstitutional
policy, custom, or practice of failing to train and/or
supervise prison doctors on proper treatment of inmates.
other claim that is mentioned in the Complaint but not
addressed herein is considered dismissed
without prejudice as inadequately pled under
survives screening against Dr. David. The allegations suggest
that the doctor responded to Plaintiff's complaints by
persisting with treatment he knew was ineffective, in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. Berry v.
Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 441-42 (7th Cir. 2010);
Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 655 (7th Cir. 2005)
(persisting in a ...