McGraw v. Peeks, 3:21-cv-00800

Plaintiff Jeff McGraw, an Illinois inmate, alleges prior gunshot injuries left bullet fragments in his prostate and a diagnosis of prostatitis by a urologist who advised possible future surgery.
While at Shawnee Correctional Center in 2020, McGraw submitted multiple sick-call requests for urinary retention and pelvic/penile/testicular pain before receiving care months later.
Nurse Mary Peeks ordered only a urine test, delayed referral to a physician despite review of records, and was allegedly rude; Dr. A. David (a general practitioner) examined McGraw but performed no diagnostic testing, did not review prior urology records, and did not refer to a specialist; prescribed medication did not relieve symptoms.
Warden Mitchell was told of McGraw’s pain, spoke with Peeks about a referral, and allegedly declined to intervene when McGraw reported continued severe pain.
McGraw alleges Wexford Health Sources’ policies caused systemic delays (mandatory nurse triage steps, GP gatekeeping of specialists, delaying imaging and specialist care to save money).
Procedurally: The court screened the pro se § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, allowed Count 1 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference) to proceed against Peeks, Dr. David, and Warden Mitchell; Count 2 (Monell) to proceed against Wexford; and Count 3 (state-law medical negligence) to proceed against Peeks, Dr. David, and Wexford, while noting Illinois 735 ILCS § 5/2-622 affidavit/report requirements had not yet been filed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether individual defendants exhibited Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference	Peeks, Dr. David, and Warden Mitchell knowingly delayed/denied necessary care for diagnosed prostatitis and severe urinary pain	Medical staff contend there was no objective evidence of urinary retention and that treatment/triage was appropriate	Allegations sufficiently plead a viable deliberate-indifference claim; Count 1 proceeds
Whether Wexford is liable under Monell for policies/customs causing unconstitutional care	Wexford’s policies force nurse triage delays, allow GPs to deny specialist care, and limit imaging, causing denial/delay of care	Wexford would argue policies are medically justified and not the moving force behind constitutional violations	Complaint plausibly alleges policy-based deliberate indifference; Monell claim (Count 2) proceeds
Whether state-law medical negligence claim may proceed and what pre-suit proof is required	McGraw alleges breach of standard of care by Peeks and Dr. David causing continued injury	Defendants would require pleading and proof under Illinois malpractice procedural rules	Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction and allows Count 3 to proceed but notes McGraw must comply with 735 ILCS § 5/2-622 (affidavit and physician report) before summary judgment

Rasho v. Elyea, 856 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 2017) (deliberate-indifference framework for prisoner medical claims)
Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2015) (deliberate indifference includes officials who turn a blind eye)
Woodward v. Corr. Med. Serv. of Ill., Inc., 368 F.3d 917 (7th Cir. 2004) (corporate medical provider liability under Monell for policies causing constitutional violations)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must be plausible to survive dismissal)
Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation, 512 F.3d 921 (7th Cir. 2008) (supplemental jurisdiction over state claims arising from same facts)
Chambers v. Igram, 858 F.2d 351 (7th Cir. 1988) (elements of Illinois medical negligence claim)
Young v. United States, 942 F.3d 349 (7th Cir. 2019) (requirements and timing for Illinois medical-malpractice affidavit/report procedural compliance)