Dismukes v. Baker et al, No. 3:2011cv03345 - Document 106 (C.D. Ill. 2014)

Court Description: OPINION: Defendants' motion to dismiss Count III is granted 92 . A hearing on the remaining motions is set for 2:30 p.m. on January 8, 2015 by video conference. Local counsel may appear in person or by video conference. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 12/29/2014. (ME, ilcd)

Download PDF
Dismukes v. Baker et al Doc. 106 E-FILED Monday, 29 December, 2014 03:38:23 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION COREY DISMUKES, et al. Plaintiff, v. DR. THOMAS BAKER, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 11-CV-3345 OPINION SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge. Plaintiff pursues claims arising from Defendants' refusal to surgically remove a large lipoma near the base of Plaintiff's head during Plaintiff’s incarceration. The case is in the process of discovery. Defendants move to dismiss count III—the vicarious liability claim against Wexford Health Sources, Inc. Defendants are correct that, as of this moment, Seventh Circuit controlling precedent clearly holds that, just like municipalities, private companies cannot be liable for employees’ constitutional violations on a theory of respondeat superior. See Hahn v. Walsh, 762 F.3d 617 (7th Cir. Page 1 of 2 Dockets.Justia.com 2014). Justice Hamilton urged the Seventh Circuit to revisit that holding, Shields v. IDOC, 746 F.3d 782 (7th Cir. 2014), but the Seventh Circuit has not done so. The Court allowed Plaintiff to include Count III for purposes of preserving the issue for appeal, but at this point Count III must be dismissed. IT IS ORDERED: 1) Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count III is granted (92). 2) A hearing on the remaining motions is set for 2:30 p.m. on January 8, 2015 by video conference. Local counsel may appear in person or by video conference. ENTER: 12/29/2014 FOR THE COURT: s/ Sue E. Myerscough SUE E. MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 2 of 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.