Wheeler v. Wexford Health Source Inc, 3:11-cv-00839

Anthony Wheeler, an IDOC inmate, sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need (hemorrhoids) at Pinckneyville C.C. between 2005 and 2011, with ongoing treatment concerns.
Wheeler sought a surgery via a preliminary injunction; the court denied relief, and the Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded for service on all relevant defendants and an evidentiary hearing.
On remand, the court identifies Count 1 alleging deliberate indifference by Wexford Health Sources, Inc. and multiple doctors and staff, continuing to date.
The court must complete threshold review of the Second Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and assess joinder under Rule 18/20.
The court appoints counsel for Wheeler due to case complexity and judicial economy, and authorizes service of process via U.S. Marshal on named defendants.
Pro se motions for appointment of a medical expert are denied without prejudice to counsel’s determination of necessary evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wheeler is entitled to injunctive relief for medical treatment.	Wheeler asserts ongoing deliberate indifference requiring surgery.	Defendants contest need for immediate surgery and seek conservative treatment.	Remains to be decided after evidentiary hearing (injunctive relief referred to Judge Williams).
Whether counsel should be appointed for Wheeler.	Counsel is necessary due to medical complexity and procedural hurdles.	Not explicitly opposed; court weighs indigence and case complexity.	Counsel appointed for Wheeler for all further proceedings.
Whether the case should proceed with service of process on named defendants.	Service should be authorized to address merits of injunction and claims.	Proper defendants identified; service authorized to move forward.	USMS appointed to effect service on listed defendants; clock for service set.
Whether the Second Amended Complaint passes threshold review under 1915A and joinder rules.	Claims assert a cognizable Eighth Amendment violation against multiple defendants.	Threshold review and joinder require careful pruning; some claims may not be properly joined.	Threshold review ordered with further analysis in separate order.

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007) (joinder and pleading standards for improper parties in civil actions)
Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2010) (standard for appointment of counsel in civil rights actions)
Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319 (7th Cir. 1993) (inquiry into plaintiff's competence to try case with or without counsel)
Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2005) (factors for appointing counsel in complex cases)
Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (Santiago framework for determining need for counsel)