WARREN v. WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana
DecidedApril 3, 2023
Docket1:22-cv-00661
StatusUnknown

This text of WARREN v. WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC. (WARREN v. WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
WARREN v. WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC., (S.D. Ind. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

LARRY WARREN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:22-cv-00661-TWP-MJD ) WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC., ) M.D. MARITAL KNIESER, ) AMBER, ) LISA GIBSON, ) SHERI WILSON, ) DUSHAN ZATECKY, ) DENNIS REAGLE, ) AARON SMITH, ) MCCUTCHEONS, ) SARAH PECKHAM AMBURN, ) ) Defendants. )

Order Screening Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings This matter is before the Court for screening of the complaint. Plaintiff Larry Warren ("Warren") is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Pendleton Correctional Facility ("Pendleton"). He filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting that his constitutional rights were violated for various reasons from April to September to 2020. Because the plaintiff is a "prisoner," this Court has an obligation to screen the complaint before service on the defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). I. Screening Standard When screening a complaint, the Court must dismiss any portion that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). To determine 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 Schillinger v. Kiley, 954 F.3d 990, 993 (7th Cir. 2020). Under that standard, a complaint must include "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "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). The Court construes pro se complaints liberally and holds them to a "less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2017). II. The Complaint As an initial matter, the Court notes that Warren attached exhibits to his complaint. Dkt. 2-1. While the Court may consider documents attached to a complaint, it is Warren's burden to plead a short and plain statement of the claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013). These exhibits appear to be evidence in support of the claims alleged in complaint. To consider the exhibits at this point would circumvent the "simple and

plain statement requirement" of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and impose an unjustified burden on the Court. The Court will not sift through these documents and try to discern their potential relevance at the pleading stage. Kadamovas v. Stevens, 706 F.3d 843, 844 (7th Cir. 2013) (stating that attachments to a complaint may be stricken). Warren names 10 defendants in his complaint: (1) Wexford of Indiana, LLC ("Wexford"), the private company that contracted with the Indiana Department of Correction ("IDOC") to provide medical care services at Pendleton; (2) Dr. Martial Knieser; (3) Nurse Amber; (4) Health Services Administrator Lisa Gibson; (5) Nurse Sheri Wilson; (6) Warden Dushan Zatecky; (7) Deputy Warden Dennis Reagle; (8) Aaron Smith; (9) Lieutenant McCutcheons; and (10) Unit Team Manager Sarah Peckham Amburn. He seeks money damages and injunctive relief, including an injunction requiring that mold be permanently removed from Pendleton, that he be seen by a respiratory expert and a tuberculosis expert, and that all parties follow any expert treatment plans. All individual defendants are sued in both their official and

individual capacities. He bases his complaint on the following factual allegations: A. Transfer to K-Dorm As of January 2020, Warren was housed in O-Dorm, which was an 8-man dorm for veterans. For the prior three years, he has been asking for an intra-dorm bed move away from the drafty center window, which was causing medical issues for him. Defendant Unit Team Manager Amburn refused the transfer. In April 2020, in the midst of the COVID-19 outbreak, Warren was transferred from O-Dorm to K-Dorm, which housed 36 men and increased his risk of exposure to COVID-19. Ms. Amburn transferred him to K-Dorm in retaliation for his many requests to be moved away from the window. Because of his move to K-Dorm, he became ill with and was treated for Lyme Disease and tuberculosis.

On June 19, 2020, Warren filed informal grievances because Ms. Amburn had not moved him back to O-Dorm, even though she promised that she would and all the other inmates who were moved around the same time as him had been returned to O-Dorm. He also filed formal grievances about the situation. Warden Zatecky responded to at least one of those grievances. B. Medical Issues and Response In May 2020, Warren began experiencing an increase in medical problems, including headaches, tightness in the chest, fatigue, vomiting, bleeding from rectum, respiratory issues, depression, stomach pain, muscle and joint pain, intestinal pain, sleep deprivation, weight loss, urine turning red, stool turning orange, high anxiety, irregular bowel movements, hunger pains, thirst and dry mouth, night sweats, and lack of appetite. In late May 2020, he had a medical visit with Defendant Nurse Amber in connection with a health-care request in which he complained of multiple problems and asked for a COVID-19 test. Nurse Amber addressed only a skin issue at the visit and refused to address more than one issue, saying that policy limited her to addressing

one issue at a time. Warren later learned that no such policy exists. As a result, many of Warren's complaints, including complaints about chest and respiratory pain, went unaddressed. Several days later, Warren filed an informal grievance that was sent to Defendant Warden Zatecky, in which he asked for a COVID-19 test. No one responded to the grievance. On June 3, 2020, Warren filed an informal grievance to Defendant Health Services Administrator Gibson about not being provided medical treatment by Defendant Dr. Knieser. Later that day, Warren saw Nurse Amber in connection with another health care request. Again, Nurse Amber would only address one issue—stomach pain—and refused to address the other complaints in the request, including complaints of respiratory issues that were made in the mist of a COVID-19 outbreak.

On June 4, Warren filed formal grievances to Warden Zatecky because he had not received responses to his previous informal grievance. On that day, Warren also filed grievances against Wexford for not testing him for respiratory issues when he was sick and in pain. Warden Zatecky responded to the grievances on July 8, 2020.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Will v. Michigan Department of State Police
491 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Helling v. McKinney
509 U.S. 25 (Supreme Court, 1993)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Calvin Thomas v. State of Illinois
697 F.3d 612 (Seventh Circuit, 2012)
Jurijus Kadamovas v. Michael Stevens
706 F.3d 843 (Seventh Circuit, 2013)
Lisa Williamson v. Mark Curran, Jr.
714 F.3d 432 (Seventh Circuit, 2013)
Christopher Pyles v. Magid Fahim
771 F.3d 403 (Seventh Circuit, 2014)
Calvin Whiting v. Wexford Health Sources, Incorp
839 F.3d 658 (Seventh Circuit, 2016)
Cynthia Archer v. John Chisholm
870 F.3d 603 (Seventh Circuit, 2017)
Daniel Schillinger v. Josh Kiley
954 F.3d 990 (Seventh Circuit, 2020)
Marie O. v. Edgar
131 F.3d 610 (Seventh Circuit, 1997)
Cesal v. Moats
851 F.3d 714 (Seventh Circuit, 2017)
Isby v. Brown
856 F.3d 508 (Seventh Circuit, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
WARREN v. WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warren-v-wexford-of-indiana-llc-insd-2023.