Czesak v. Kashyap
1:24-cv-01006
C.D. Ill.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Anthony Czesak, acting pro se, filed multiple versions of a civil rights complaint regarding the care his father, Boguslaw Czesak, received at Methodist Medical Center while hospitalized with COVID-19 from November 2021 to March 2022.
- Czesak alleged the doctors and hospital discriminated against his disabled father and threatened to withdraw life-sustaining treatment against their wishes, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Section 1557 of the ACA, the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA, and EMTALA, as well as state law claims.
- Earlier versions of the complaint were dismissed for, among other reasons, failing to establish state action, standing, and proper pleading under federal law. The court gave Anthony leave to amend.
- The Second Amended Complaint added Boguslaw as a plaintiff and expanded the claims but raised similar underlying facts and newly pled additional causes of action.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing all claims were either time-barred, lacked standing, were inadequately pleaded, or failed as a matter of law. The court considered if the amendments related back to the original filing date to toll statute of limitations issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relation back of added plaintiff & parties | Adding Boguslaw and Methodist relates back to original suit as claims/parties clear | Boguslaw not adequately added/timely; 'John Doe' unclear | Boguslaw’s, Methodist’s claims relate back; John Doe dismissed |
| State action for § 1983 | Defendants’ actions deprived rights under color of law | No state action—private actors | No state action; § 1983 claims dismissed |
| Discrimination under ACA/ADA/Rehabilitation | Defendants discriminated against Boguslaw due to disability in medical care | No exclusion from programs; only medical decisions made | No plausible discrimination stated |
| EMTALA claim | Threats to withdraw treatment violated stabilization obligations | Patient was stabilized, not transferred, no actual withdrawal | No EMTALA violation pled |
| Supplemental jurisdiction (state law) | State law violations should be considered | None addressed directly | Declined to exercise jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
- Brokaw v. Mercer Cty., 235 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir. 2000) (state action required for § 1983)
- Reed v. Columbia St. Mary’s Hosp., 782 F.3d 331 (7th Cir. 2015) (private hospitals generally not state actors)
- Scherr v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 703 F.3d 1069 (7th Cir. 2013) (statute of limitations for ADA claims)
- Rutledge v. Ill. Dep’t of Human Servs., 785 F.3d 258 (7th Cir. 2015) (statute of limitations for Rehabilitation Act claims)
- Thomas v. Christ Hosp. and Med. Center, 328 F.3d 890 (7th Cir. 2003) (hospital obligations under EMTALA)
- Reed v. Columbia St. Mary’s Hosp., 915 F.3d 473 (7th Cir. 2019) (elements for Rehabilitation Act violation)