Ruiz v. Williams
| Decision Date | 17 November 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 14-cv-02750 |
| Citation | 144 F.Supp.3d 1007 |
| Parties | Israel Ruiz, Plaintiff, v. L. Williams, Dr. Shaffer, Dr. Parthasarathi Ghosh, Dr. Carter, C.O. Whitfield, Warden Marcus Hardy, Dr. Ojelade, Warden M. Reed, Dr. Andrew Tilden, Dr. Nwaobasi, Dr. Shearing, Dr. Fuentez, Nurse Eggemeyer, Warden Richard Harrington, Warden Randy Pfister, Dr. Louis Shicker, and Wexford Health Sources, Inc. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Ann H. MacDonald, Allison M. Nichols, Kristen Deanne Totten Viglione, Schiff Hardin LLP, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.
Melissa Y. Gandhi, Peter James Strauss, Michael R. Slovis, Cunningham, Meyer & Vedrine, P.C., Terry Shing-Ren Lu, Lyle Kevin Henretty, Office of the Illinois Attorney General, Chicago, IL, for L. Williams, et al.
Robert M. Dow, Jr.
Before the Court is the motion [75] of Defendants Eggemeyer, Hardy, Harrington, Pfister,1 Reed, and Shicker (“Defendants”) to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint [11] or, in the alternative, to sever the claims involving the Pontiac Correctional Center and the Menard Correctional Center. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Defendants' motion. The Court also grants Defendant Whitfield leave to file an answer or a motion to dismiss by December 14, 2015.
On April 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint [1] against seventeen medical and non-medical officials who work at the Stateville, Pontiac, and Menard Correctional Centers, where Plaintiff has been incarcerated. The complaint was handwritten in narrative form and did not contain separate counts. It alleged, in essence, that the defendants violated his rights under the First, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution by showing deliberate indifference and reckless and callous disregard for his requests for medical treatment following a “gastric eruption” in his lower right abdomen in February 2010.
When he filed his original complaint, Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [3] and a motion for attorney representation [4]. The Court granted both of Plaintiff's motions. See [6], [7]. In addition, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's original complaint without prejudice and ordered Plaintiff's recruited counsel to file an amended complaint to address two issues. [6] at 3. First, the Court determined that the original complaint did not comply with federal rules concerning joinder, because it alleged “distinct claims against unrelated Defendants.” Id. at 2. The Court stated that “Plaintiff may sue only Stateville officials under this case number,” and must file a separate action against the Pontiac officials in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, and another separate action against the Menard officials in the Southern District of Illinois. Id. (citing George v. Smith , 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.2007)
). Second, the Court recommended that counsel “ensure that any claim against Stateville Defendants is timely” under the applicable two-year statute of limitations. Id. (citing Dominguez v. Hendley , 545 F.3d 585, 588 (7th Cir.2008) ; 735 ILCS 5/13–202 ).
Plaintiff, through his recruited attorneys, filed an amended complaint [11]. The amended complaint adds as a defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (“Wexford”), which provides medical care and treatment to inmates at the Stateville, Pontiac, and Menard Correctional Centers. The amended complaint contains a background section, divided into three parts, that outlines the deliberate indifference that Plaintiff allegedly endured at the Stateville, Pontiac, and Menard Correctional Centers. All of the events detailed occurred between February 2010—when Plaintiff felt the “gastric eruption” in his lower right abdomen—and January 2014—when he was diagnosed with irritable bowel
syndrome (“IBS”) and prescribed medication to help treat his condition and control his pain. The amended complaint contains three counts. Count I is brought against all Defendants except Wexford and alleges a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for cruel and unusual punishment and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Count II is brought only against Wexford and alleges that Wexford's policies and procedures resulted in the consistent failure and refusal of its employees to provide adequate medical care to Plaintiff. Count III is brought against all Defendants and alleges that Defendants have violated Plaintiff's First Amendment rights by retaliating against him for pursuing prior lawsuits and grievances at the Stateville, Pontiac, and Menard correctional centers.
Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Whitfield and Defendant Hardy on the basis that such claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations that applies to Section 1983
actions in Illinois. See Kalimara v. Illinois Dep't of Corr. , 879 F.2d 276, 276–77 (7th Cir.1989) (). The Court considers each Defendant separately.
The motion at issue here [75] was brought by Defendants Eggemayer, Hardy, Pfister, Reed and Shicker. [75] at 1, 8; see also [81] at 1, 7. These Defendants do not have standing to move for the dismissal of claims against Defendant Whitfield. Therefore, the motion [75] is denied as to Defendant Whitfield. The Court presumes that Defendants may have mistakenly omitted Defendant Whitfield from the motion's title, introductory paragraph, and prayer for relief. Therefore the Court grants Defendant Whitfield leave to file a motion to dismiss or an answer by no later than November 25, 2015.
The following allegations in the amended complaint are relevant to resolving Hardy's statute of limitations argument. At all times relevant to the amended complaint, Hardy was warden at the Stateville Correctional Center. [11] at 6. On February 24, 2010, while residing in the Stateville Correctional Center, Plaintiff felt a gastric eruption in his lower right abdomen and groin area. Id. at 4. Plaintiff saw medical staff and was prescribed laxatives, but this did not address his condition and his pain continued to worsen. See id. at 5. On August 3, 2010, Plaintiff submitted an emergency grievance complaining that he was suffering from pain, gas and other issues that medical staff had failed to address. Id. On August 11, 2010, Defendant Hardy deemed Plaintiff's August 3, 2010 grievance an emergency. Id. at 6. However, Hardy never followed up on the issue and no one else addressed it. Id. at 6. Hardy subsequently received (on unspecified dates) at least four more grievances from Plaintiff seeking help for the same medical problems, but did not respond. Id. Plaintiff also sent (on unspecified dates) letters to Hardy concerning his medical condition, severe pain, and need for help, but Hardy did not respond to the letters, either. Id. On December 30, 2011, Plaintiff was examined by Defendant Dr. Carter in the Health Care Unit. Dr. Carter gave Ruiz laxatives, but they did not help with Plaintiff's extreme abdominal pain, lower back pain, or bleeding rectum. Id. at 8. Plaintiff complained to Defendant Dr. Shicker and Defendant Williams that he was not receiving adequate treatment for his severe abdominal pain and gastrointestinal issues, but they did nothing. See id. at 8–9. At some point between July 11, 2012 and August 29, 2012, Plaintiff was transferred from Stateville to the Pontiac Correctional Center. Id. at 9. Plaintiff was transferred again, from Pontiac to the Menard Correctional Center, at some point between January 10, 2013 and April 20, 2013. See id. at 11–12. On January 8, 2014, Plaintiff saw Dr. Trost, who diagnosed him with IBS and prescribed medication to address his condition. Id. at 14. Since then, Plaintiff has taken the medication that Dr. Trost prescribed and it has addressed his symptoms and helped control his pain. Id.
Rule 8(a) requires a plaintiff's complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)
), such that the defendant is given “fair notice of what the * * * claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson , 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957) ). The factual allegations in the claim must be sufficient to raise the possibility of relief above the “speculative level,” assuming that all of the allegations in the complaint are true. E.E.O.C. v. Concentra Health Servs., Inc. , 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir.2007) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions' or a ‘formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’ ”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)
(quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the * * * claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 93, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ) (ellipsis in original). The Court reads the complaint and assesses its plausibility as a whole. See Atkins v. City of Chi. , 631 F.3d 823, 832 (7th Cir.2011).
Typically, a statute of limitations issue cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss, because the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that the plaintiff is not required to address in the complaint....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bernard v. Scott, Case No. 3:15-cv-50277
...if the violation is considered "continuing," such violation will at least end when the inmate is released. See Ruiz v. Williams , 144 F. Supp. 3d 1007, 1012 (N.D. Ill. 2015).As noted above, Bernard was detained at the jail on November 3, 2011, but he left the jail that day. He was again det......
-
Passmore v. Josephson
...involved in an inmate's medical care are usually not liable for their review and/or denial of medical grievances." Ruiz v. Williams , 144 F.Supp.3d 1007, 1013 (N.D. Ill. 2015) ; see also Gevas v. Mitchell , 492 F. App'x 654, 656 (7th Cir. 2012) (dismissing claim where "[Plaintiff] alleges n......
-
Receivership Mgmt., Inc. v. A.J. Corso & Assocs.
...improperly joined and denies the motions to dismiss to the extent they rely on a theory of improper joinder. See Ruiz v. Williams, 144 F. Supp. 3d 1007, 1018 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (denying motion to dismiss based in part on improper joinder and holding that severance is only appropriate where th......
-
Hardy v. Godinez
...Hardy, 826 F.3d 1000, 1008 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987, 993 (7th Cir. 1996); see also Ruiz v. Williams, 144 F. Supp. 3d 1007, 1015 n.3 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (citing cases). In the instant case, Plaintiff's amended complaint asserts he notified each of the Defendant offic......