Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01813/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01813-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted October 31, 2016*

Decided November 1, 2016

Before

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 16‐1813

LARRY PAUL MOORE,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

ST. JOHN’S HOSPITAL and

WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.,

Defendants‐Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 15‐4177   

Sue E. Myerscough,

Judge.

O R D E R

Larry Moore, a civil detainee at Rushville Treatment and Detention Center, claims

in this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that St. John’s Hospital, a private medical center, and

Wexford Health Sources, the contract healthcare provider at Rushville, denied him due

process by deliberately ignoring his medical needs. Moore asserts that a nurse at

St. John’s Hospital, where he was to undergo surgery to remove hemorrhoids and repair

a suspected torn colon, was rude and made disparaging remarks about his status as a sex

                                                 

* We have agreed unanimously to decide this case without oral argument

because the appeal is frivolous. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(A).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 16-1813 Document: 16 Filed: 11/01/2016 Pages: 2
No. 16‐1813    Page 2

offender. Moore also asserts that the operating room was so unsanitary that he decided

to refuse the surgery (which, other physicians later decided, would have been

unnecessary). The district court screened Moore’s complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),

and concluded that it does not state a claim because neither the hospital nor Wexford is

accused of maintaining an unconstitutional custom, policy, or practice that caused the

alleged denial of medical care. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S.

658, 692 (1978) (concluding that § 1983 imposes liability on a municipal defendant “that,

under color of some official policy, ‘causes’ an employee to violate another’s

constitutional rights”); Daniel v. Cook Cty., No. 15‐2832, 2016 WL 4254934, at *3–6 (7th Cir.

Aug. 12, 2016) (discussing Monell as applied to county jail). The district court also noted

that Moore did not suffer any injury as a result of being sent to the unsanitary operating

room because he refused treatment after seeing the room. Moreover, the court reasoned,

the nurse’s rude comments, although inappropriate and unprofessional, did not amount

to a constitutional violation. See DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 612 (7th Cir. 2000)

(concluding that prisoner administrator’s racially disparaging remarks did not violate

Constitution). The court dismissed the suit with prejudice.

On appeal Moore does not identify any disagreement with the district court’s

reasons for dismissing his lawsuit or cite any applicable legal authority. Indeed, Moore

has not submitted an appellate brief but rather a document that appears to be a formal

complaint to the Illinois Department of Human Services raising new accusations that

Wexford has engaged in criminal abuse or neglect of an elderly or disabled person in

violation of former 720 ILCS 5/12‐21(a), which was replaced in 2011 by 720 ILCS

5/12‐4.4a. These new accusations have nothing to do with the lawsuit or decision under

review, and this appeal is not an opportunity for Moore to amend his complaint to add

additional claims. Although we construe the briefs of pro se appellants liberally,

arguments must be developed and supported to be preserved. See FED. R. APP. P.

28(a)(8)(A); Rahn v. Bd. of Trustees of N. Ill. Univ., 803 F.3d 285, 295 (7th Cir. 2015);

Yasinskyy v. Holder, 724 F.3d 983, 989 (7th Cir. 2013). Moore thus has waived any

argument that the district court erred.

DISMISSED.

Case: 16-1813 Document: 16 Filed: 11/01/2016 Pages: 2