This case was last updated from U.S. District Courts on 04/21/2019 at 07:13:11 (UTC).

Dixon v. Wexford Medical Source et al

Case Summary

On 02/20/2019 Dixon filed a Prisoner - Prison Condition lawsuit against Wexford Medical Source. This case was filed in U.S. District Courts, Illinois Southern District. The Judge overseeing this case is Staci M. Yandle. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    3:19-CV-00222

  • Filing Date:

    02/20/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Prisoner - Prison Condition

  • Courthouse:

    Illinois Southern District

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Staci M. Yandle

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Marcus T. Dixon

Menard, IL 62259

Defendants

C/O Korte

Sgt. Migneren

Jacqueline Lashbrook

Lieutenant Robinson

Jason N. Hart

Centralia Correctional Center

Nurse Smith

John Baldwin

Wexford Medical Source

Menard Correctional Center

C/O Rucker

Dr. Alt

Jose A. Delgado

Kimberly Butler

Lieutenant Stock

Western Illinois Correctional Center

Muhammad Siddiqui

Sarah Johnson

Terrance Jackson

6 More Parties Available

 

Court Documents

#9

(#9) MOTION to Reconsider re 8 Order, by Marcus T. Dixon. (jsm2) (Entered: 03/05/2019)

#6

(#6) NOTICE AND ORDER: The Court has received your complaint and your motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. Your case number is 19-cv-222-SMY. The following is some information you should know regarding the initial stages of your lawsuit. After your filing fee status is determined, the Court will review your complaint to identify legally sufficient claims and defendants and dismiss any legally insufficient claims. See: 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915A. The Court will conduct this review within the next 60 days and inform you of the findings in a Merit Review Order. No other action will be taken in your case during this time, absent extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, you do not need to submit any evidence, argument, motions, or other documents. If you filed a motion for recruitment of counsel along with your complaint, it will not be considered until the merit review is complete. Please note that any motion for recruitment of counsel must include evidence of your own efforts to find counsel, such as a list of the attorneys you contacted and copies of letters you sent or received. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). If you do not receive a Merit Review Order within the next 60 days, you may file a motion requesting the status of your case. In the event your claim(s) survive the merit review, further information and instruction will be provided to you at that time. In addition, several administrative matters warrant mention. Any communication directed to the Court should be in the form of a motion or other pleading and not a letter. All mail should be sent to: Clerk's Office, U.S. District Court, 750 Missouri Avenue, East St. Louis, IL 62201. A copy of the Notice and Consent to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge form is attached to this Order. Finally, you are advised that if your address changes, you must notify the Court within seven days of the change by filing a Notice of Change of Address. Failure to do so could result in the dismissal of your case. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 2/20/2019. (jsm2) (Entered: 02/20/2019)

#5

(#5) EXHIBIT by Marcus T. Dixon. Exhibit to #4 Motion for TRO. (jsm2) (Entered: 02/20/2019)

#4

(#4) MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction by Marcus T. Dixon. (jsm2) (Entered: 02/20/2019)

#3

(#3) MOTION for Appointment of Counsel by Marcus T. Dixon. (jsm2) (Entered: 02/20/2019)

#2

(#2) MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Marcus T. Dixon. (jsm2) (Entered: 02/20/2019)

1 #2

Exhibits

1 #1

Exhibits

#1

(#1) COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Marcus T. Dixon. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits, #2 Exhibits).(jsm2) (Entered: 02/20/2019)

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/20/2019
  • Filing fee: $ 400.00, receipt number 34625091577 (cds) (Entered: 03/20/2019)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2019
  • Set/Reset Deadlines: Action due by 3/25/2019. (jsm2) (Entered: 03/12/2019)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • (#10) Order DENYING #9 Motion to Reconsider Denial of Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff offers additional information regarding his efforts to obtain medical follow-up appointments with an endocrinologist, ophthalmologist, and neurologist for several medical conditions at three prisons since 2016. His most recent requests for treatment at Menard in 2018 have focused on follow-up care with an endocrinologist. Newly-produce documentation reveals that he met with an endocrinologist in August and October 2018. On October 25, 2018, a 6-month follow-up appointment was recommended (i.e., late April 2019). Given that this date has not passed and Plaintiff describes no new symptoms warranting immediate treatment, the Court declines to vacate its Order Denying TRO on February 22, 2019. The new information does not support the issuance of a TRO then or now. Plaintiff is reminded that his Motion for Preliminary Injunction remains pending, as does his obligation to pay the full filing fee for this action by March 25, 2019, if he wishes to proceed any further with this matter. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 3/11/2019. (jsy)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 03/11/2019)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • (#9) MOTION to Reconsider re 8 Order, by Marcus T. Dixon. (jsm2) (Entered: 03/05/2019)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • (#8) ORDER DENYING #4 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") and DEFERRING ruling on Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff "struck out" before filing this suit against 25 defendants at 3 different prisons for conduct that occurred in 2016 and 2017. (Doc. 1). In the Complaint, he brings claims of medical deliberate indifference, excessive force, unconstitutional conditions of confinement and unfair disciplinary action that occurred at Menard, Western, and Centralia. Along with the Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP Motion"), despite having "struck out" and having sufficient funds to pay the $400.00 filing fee. Plaintiff's IFP Motion was denied, and preliminary review of this matter under 28 U.S.C. 1915A will be completed if he complies with the Order Denying IFP. Because Plaintiff also seeks a TRO, the Court will consider this request without delay. Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680 (7th Cir. 2012). In the Motion, Plaintiff broadly asks for "appropriate medical care" with "specialist doctors," including "follow up appointments as scheduled." (Doc. 4, p. 1). He describes insufficient care following his January 2016 brain surgery (Menard), August 2017 endoscopy (Centralia), October 2017 prison guard assault (Centralia), 2017 order for an MRI and bloodwork (Western), and miscellaneous falls. (Doc. 4, pp. 1-8). Plaintiff complains of current hip and lower back pain, poor vision, and a limp and seeks further evaluation and treatment with an endocrinologist, neurosurgeon, and/or other specialist. However, it is unclear whether he has asked officials at his current facility (i.e., Menard) for this relief. The Court combed through Plaintiff's voluminous Complaint (Doc. 1, 1-1, and 1-2) and Motion (Doc. 4) to find allegations or exhibits addressing his recent efforts to notify Menard officials of these symptoms, his request for relief, or their response and found nothing to this effect. In fact, the most recent exhibit to the Complaint is a Grievance Officers Report dated March 5, 2018 that addresses Plaintiff's October 2017 grievance regarding property loss. (Doc. 1-1, p. 8). He mentions no hip, back, or vision problems. A TRO may issue only if "specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate or irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). Such injunctive relief is warranted "to prevent a substantial risk of serious injury from ripening into actual harm." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 845 (1994). Absent any indication that Plaintiff actually reported a harm and requested relief at any point during the past year, the Court finds no basis for granting this drastic form of relief. The Motion for TRO is DENIED. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 2/22/2019. (jsy)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 02/22/2019)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • (#7) ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. #2 ). A federal court may permit an indigent party to proceed without pre-payment of fees. 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1). The Court is not satisfied from Dixon's affidavit that he is indigent. Plaintiff's trust fund account balance as of February 7, 2019, was $540.98 (Doc. #2 ). Plaintiff lists no monthly expenses. Id. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. #2 ). Plaintiff shall pay the $400.00 filing fee no later than March 25, 2019. Failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of this action for failure to comply with a court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). See generally Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Johnson v. Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 2/22/2019. (tjk)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 02/22/2019)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • (#6) NOTICE AND ORDER: The Court has received your complaint and your motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. Your case number is 19-cv-222-SMY. The following is some information you should know regarding the initial stages of your lawsuit. After your filing fee status is determined, the Court will review your complaint to identify legally sufficient claims and defendants and dismiss any legally insufficient claims. See: 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915A. The Court will conduct this review within the next 60 days and inform you of the findings in a Merit Review Order. No other action will be taken in your case during this time, absent extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, you do not need to submit any evidence, argument, motions, or other documents. If you filed a motion for recruitment of counsel along with your complaint, it will not be considered until the merit review is complete. Please note that any motion for recruitment of counsel must include evidence of your own efforts to find counsel, such as a list of the attorneys you contacted and copies of letters you sent or received. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). If you do not receive a Merit Review Order within the next 60 days, you may file a motion requesting the status of your case. In the event your claim(s) survive the merit review, further information and instruction will be provided to you at that time. In addition, several administrative matters warrant mention. Any communication directed to the Court should be in the form of a motion or other pleading and not a letter. All mail should be sent to: Clerk's Office, U.S. District Court, 750 Missouri Avenue, East St. Louis, IL 62201. A copy of the Notice and Consent to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge form is attached to this Order. Finally, you are advised that if your address changes, you must notify the Court within seven days of the change by filing a Notice of Change of Address. Failure to do so could result in the dismissal of your case. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 2/20/2019. (jsm2) (Entered: 02/20/2019)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • (#5) EXHIBIT by Marcus T. Dixon. Exhibit to #4 Motion for TRO. (jsm2) (Entered: 02/20/2019)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • (#4) MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction by Marcus T. Dixon. (jsm2) (Entered: 02/20/2019)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • (#3) MOTION for Appointment of Counsel by Marcus T. Dixon. (jsm2) (Entered: 02/20/2019)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • (#2) MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Marcus T. Dixon. (jsm2) (Entered: 02/20/2019)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • (#1) COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Marcus T. Dixon. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits, #2 Exhibits).(jsm2) (Entered: 02/20/2019)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Wexford Medical Sources, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where Western Illinois Correctional Center is a litigant

Latest cases where Menard Correctional Center is a litigant