United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
JAMES E. GILMAN, Plaintiff,
CORIZON MEDICAL SERVICES, et al., Defendants.
ENTRY DISCUSSING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
James Gilman, an inmate at the Wabash Valley Correctional
Facility, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 and Indiana medical malpractice law alleging that he has
been provided inadequate medical treatment for his painful
knees. Defendants Esther Hinton and Monica Gipson (the
“State Defendants”) seek judgment on the
pleadings on the claims against them.
motion for judgment on the pleadings under rule 12(c) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is governed by the same
standards as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
under Rule 12(b)(6).” BBL, Inc. v. City of
Angola, 809 F.3d 317, 325 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting
Adams v. City of Indianapolis, 742 F.3d 720, 727-28
(7th Cir.2014)). As such, “the question at this stage
is simply whether the complaint includes factual allegations
that state a plausible claim for relief.” Id.
(citing Fortres Grand Corp. v. Warner Bros. Entm't.
Inc., 763 F.3d 696, 700 (7th Cir.2014)) (applying Rule
12(b)(6)). “A plaintiff's ‘[f]actual
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level.'” Yeadon Fabric Domes,
LLC v. Roberts Environmental Control Corp., No.
15 CV 6679, 2016 WL 3940098, *1 (N.D. Ill. July 21, 2016)
(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Put
differently, “a ‘complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.'”
Id. (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)) (citation
and quotation marks omitted). “All reasonable
inferences are drawn in favor of the non-movant.”
Id. (citing Lodholtz v. York Risk Servs. Grp.,
Inc., 778 F.3d 635, 639 (7th Cir. 2015)). Ultimately, a
court will grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings only
if “no genuine issues of material fact remain to be
resolved and...the [moving party] is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law.” Alexander v. City of
Chicago, 994 F.2d 333, 336 (7th Cir. 2012); see also
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Thermos LLC, 146 F.Supp.3d
1005, 1012 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (citing Alexander, 994
F.2d at 336).
Allegations of the Complaint
discussed above, if the allegations of Gilman's complaint
show that he is not entitled to relief against the State
Defendants, then they are entitled to judgment on the
complaint is based on his allegations that he has received
inadequate medical care for his knee pain. He sues several
medical professionals involved in his care as well as Corizon
Medical Services. In addition to these defendants, Gilman
alleges that State Defendants Hinton and Gibson were
deliberately indifferent when they denied his grievances
related to his medical care. Specifically, Gilman alleges
that on September 29, 2015, Dr. Byrd prescribed a cortisone
injection for Gilman's right knee to be administered at
the beginning of October 2015. Gilman did not receive the
injection and filed an informal grievance. On November 13,
2015, Gilman filed a formal grievance regarding the delay in
receiving medical treatment, seeking a cortisone injection.
At the Formal Grievance Level, on December 7, 2016, it was
determined by Kim Hopson that: “The provider has
scheduled you for an xray (sic) for the right knee. He plans
to schedule you for an injection sometime in December. He
will review your xray (sic) and then determine the need for
an MRI.” Gilman appealed the response to his formal
grievance on December 22, 2016. At the Formal Appeal stage of
his grievance, on January 4, 2016, State Defendant Esther
I have reviewed your medical file and find you have an x-ray
which the provider reviewed and an injection was scheduled
for December. This is not a prescribed ongoing injection. It
is a result of you being seen by provider and him ordering
the injection at the time of that encounter. Grievance
Medical Contract Monitor for Monica Gipson, R.N.
Director, Medical and Clinical Health Care Services
asserted Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference and medical
malpractice claims against the State Defendants. The State
Defendants seek judgment on the pleadings on each of these