DISMUKES v. BAKER, 11-CV-3345. (2014)
Court: District Court, C.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20141230d68
Visitors: 13
Filed: Dec. 29, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 29, 2014
Summary: OPINION SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, 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 compani
Summary: OPINION SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, 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 companie..
More
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, 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. 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.
Source: Leagle
