Blake v. Saffold
1:20-cv-01196
| N.D. Ill. | Sep 3, 2025Background
- On April 20, 2017, Blake underwent a dental filling and thereafter lost sensation on the right side of his tongue and suffered burning, stinging pain and repeated self-biting injuries.
- Blake repeatedly sought pain medication and specialist care in 2017–2019; Dr. Saffold refused pain meds and recommended a specialist referral; Dr. Hector Garcia (utilization manager) denied a May 17, 2017 referral request; LaTanya Williams (PA) told Blake to endure the pain.
- Blake continued seeking care; a neurologist at U. of Illinois prescribed Neurontin on June 14, 2019 and diagnosed an iatrogenic nerve injury that relieved his pain.
- Procedural history: Blake filed pro se on Feb. 19, 2020; counsel was recruited and an amended complaint was filed July 24, 2020. Service on Garcia occurred July 19, 2022; service on Williams occurred Jan. 5, 2023.
- Garcia and Williams moved to dismiss for insufficient service (Rule 12(b)(5)) and for failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6)); Garcia additionally argued the claims were time-barred. The court denied both defendants’ motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of service (Rule 4(m) / 12(b)(5)) | Delay caused by Wexford counsel withholding addresses; defendants had actual notice | Service untimely; dismissal warranted | Court declined to dismiss; exercised discretion to extend time given actual notice, lack of prejudice, and court conduct suggesting extended time |
| Failure to state a claim (IIED theory) | Alleges prolonged, deliberate indifference causing severe emotional distress | IIED theory insufficient | Court denied dismissal; defendants attacked only IIED theory while a viable §1983 deliberate-indifference claim remains, so claim survives at pleading stage |
| Claims vs. legal theories (pleading sufficiency) | Multiple theories premised on same facts constitute one claim; pleading is adequate | Move to dismiss one theory is proper | Court: cannot dismiss parts of a claim at Rule 12(b)(6) stage; pleading need not allege each theory—if one theory survives, complaint survives |
| Statute of limitations (Garcia) | Alleged continuing violation while defendants could remedy; timeliness is factual | Claim time-barred (May 17, 2017 denial → limitations expired May 16, 2019) | Court refused dismissal on the pleadings; statute-of-limitations is an affirmative defense and factual questions (authority/responsibility; continuing violation) preclude dismissal now |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. Milwaukee Bd. of School Directors, 290 F.3d 932 (7th Cir. 2002) (district courts may extend Rule 4(m) service period even absent good cause)
- Jones v. Ramos, 12 F.4th 745 (7th Cir. 2021) (enumerates factors courts consider when deciding whether to extend Rule 4(m) time for service)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading and that complaint receives benefit of reasonable imagination)
- NAACP v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 978 F.2d 287 (7th Cir. 1992) (different legal theories based on the same facts do not create multiple claims)
- Sojka v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc., 686 F.3d 394 (7th Cir. 2012) (definition of a claim as the aggregate of operative facts giving rise to an enforceable right)
- United States v. N. Trust Co., 372 F.3d 886 (7th Cir. 2004) (a complaint may state a claim even if a defense, such as the statute of limitations, may later defeat it)
- Heard v. Sheahan, 253 F.3d 316 (7th Cir. 2001) (continuing-violation principles where an alleged wrong persists while defendant retains power to remedy)