United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
DANNY R. RICHARDS, Plaintiff,
CORIZON HEALTH, et al. Defendants.
WILLIAM T. LAWRENCE, JUDGE.
the plaintiff's complaint was screened by the Court on
April 18, 2018. The Court dismissed the complaint for failure
to state a claim but gave the plaintiff an opportunity to
file an amended complaint. See Dkt. No. 8. The
plaintiff has filed a motion to amend complaint that the
Court construes as the amended complaint. The clerk
is instructed to docket the motion to amend
complaint found at docket 10 as the amended complaint. The
amended complaint is now subject to screening.
plaintiff is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Wabash
Valley Correctional Facility (“Wabash Valley”).
Because the plaintiff is a “prisoner” as defined
by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), this Court has an obligation
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) to screen his amended
complaint before service on the defendants. Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court must dismiss the complaint
if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for
relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. In determining whether the complaint
states a claim, the Court applies the same standard as when
addressing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). See Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463
F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). To survive dismissal,
[the] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Pro se
complaints such as that filed by the plaintiff are construed
liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers. Obriecht v. Raemisch,
517 F.3d 489, 491 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008).
The Amended Complaint
plaintiff's claims are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against defendants Corizon Health, Dr. Chavez,
Dr. Byrd, Dr. Denning, and Wexford.
complaint alleges that medical staff prescribed steroids to
him from 2008 to 2010 to treat his ulcerative colitis but
medical staff never explained any potential side effects from
the steroids. This placed the plaintiff in harm's way.
and Dr. Chavez allegedly ignored the plaintiff's blood
test results and denied him proper treatment for diabetes.
Specifically, in November 2017, Dr. Byrd saw the plaintiff
for his diabetes and recommended he be seen by a specialist.
As of April 30, 2018, the plaintiff has not been seen by a
plaintiff also alleges that Wexford is denying his request to
be seen by a diabetes specialist and Dr. Jackie Denning has
failed to document or treat his complaints of abdominal pain,
nausea, dizziness, severe headaches, lightheadedness,
shooting pain in the area of his kidneys, and vomiting.
Discussion of Claims
the screening standard to the factual allegations in the
complaint certain claims are dismissed, while other claims
complaint alleges that Corizon and medical staff knew that
continuing to prescribe him steroids that long terms side
effects such as diabetes would occur. He also alleges that
Wexford has failed to properly treat his diabetes. Because
Corizon and Wexford act under color of state law by
contracting to perform a government function, i.e., providing
medical care to correctional facilities, they are treated as
a government entity for purposes of Section 1983 claims.
See Jackson v. Illinois Medi-Car, Inc., 300 F.3d
760, 766 fn.6 (7th Cir. 2002); but see Shields v.
Illinois Department of Correction, 746 F.3d 782, 790
(7th Cir. 2014) (finding “substantial grounds to
question the extension of the Monell holding for
municipalities to private corporations”). Therefore, to
state a cognizable deliberate indifference claim against
Corizon and Wexford, Richards must allege that he suffered a
constitutional deprivation as the result of an express policy
or custom of Corizon or Wexford. Richard has alleged that
these corporate defendants failed to provide him adequate
medical care to save money. Glisson v. Indiana Dep't
of Corr., 849 F.3d 372, 381 (7th Cir. 2017) (holding