govinfo:USCOURTS-ilsd-3_25-cv-01820-1

Page 1 of 10 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 
 
 
DAROUSH EBRAHIMI, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
PERCY MEYERS, 
 
 Defendant. 
 
 
 
 

 
 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
 
BEATTY, Magistrate Judge: 
Plaintiff Daroush Ebrahimi, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections 
who is currently incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center (Pinckneyville), brings 
this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights. The 
First Amended Complaint is now before the Court for preliminary review pursuant to 28 
U.S.C. § 1915A . 1 Under Section 1915A, any portion of a complaint that is legally 
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or requests 
money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief must be 
dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 
T
HE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 
 Plaintiff asserts that he is seventy-five years of age and “suffers from a host of 
 
1 The Court has jurisdiction to resolve motions and to screen the First Amended Complaint in light of 
Plaintiff’s consent to the full jurisdiction of a magistrate judge and Wexford’s and Centurion’s li mited 
consent to the exercise of magistrate judge jurisdiction as set forth in the Memorandums of Understanding 
between Wexford, Centurion, and this Court. Page ID
#<pageID>
Page 2 of 10 
 
ailments that are very serious which effects his ability to walk, ambulate, and perform 
daily tasks.” (Doc. 16, 5). On September 29, 2023, Plaintiff began vomiting and defecating 
blood. (Id.). While attempting to alert correctional staff of his medical needs, he slipped 
in his own vomit, injuring his right hip. Plaintiff subsequently fell two more times and 
injured his left shoulder, left lower back, and spine. (Id.). 
 On October 2, 2023, Plaintiff was taken to Southern Illinois Hospital for an MRI. 
(Doc. 16, p. 5). The MRI results showed that Plaintiff had a severe lower back and spine 
injury and that his shoulder was injured, but the results “showed no signs of rotator tear.” 
(Id.). Plaintiff was prescribed Neurontin and tramadol for his injuries. (Id.). 
 Plaintiff was treated by Dr. Meyers at Pinckneyville on November 3, 2023. (Doc. 
16, p. 6). During the appointment, Dr. M eyers “refused to examine Plaintiff’s injuries ” 
and discontinued the tramadol medication. (Id.). Instead, Dr. Meyers prescribed Tylenol 
for Plaintiff’s pain. (Id.). When Plaintiff asked Dr. Myers why the tramadol medication 
was being canceled, Dr. M eyers responded, “We are spending ton es (sic) of money on 
you, this medication is very expensive.” (Id.). Plaintiff requested that Dr. Meyers continue 
prescribing tramadol because without it he w ould be in excruciating pain. (Id.). Plaintiff 
asserts that when he was not taking tramadol he could not sleep, enjoy reading or 
entertainment, or move from his bed to the toilet. (Id.). At some point, Plaintiff informed 
Dr. Meyers that his pain level had increased when the medication was changed from 
tramadol to Tylenol. (Id.). 
 An x-ray of Plaintiff’s left humerus was ordered by Dr. Noureldin and taken 
November 26, 2023. (Doc. 16, p. 17). In the x-ray report, Dr. Wang recommended a follow- Page ID
#<pageID>
Page 3 of 10 
 
up x-ray in three months in order to “establish stability to exclude any periosteal reaction 
to any underlying pathology.” (Id.).2 
 On February 15, 2024, Plaintiff was taken to the health care unit at Pinckneyville 
when he returned from an outside medical appointment. (Doc. 16, p. 6). Plaintiff 
describes the medical staff as being confused that he was there. ( Id.). Plaintiff was seen 
by Dr. Myers, who was “visibly upset with Plaintiff.” (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that when Dr. 
Myers noticed that Plaintiff was wearing a sling to support his injured left shoulder, Dr. 
Meyers asked, “Why are you wearing that sling[?] YOU DO NOT NEED IT, GIV E IT 
HERE NOW.” (Id.). Plaintiff asserts that Dr. M eyers then grabbed the sling and tried to 
pull it off him “with great force.” (Id.). Plaintiff yelled for Dr. Meyers to stop and that Dr. 
Meyers was hurting his shoulder. ( Id.). Nurses then alerted a correctional officer of the 
altercation. (Id.). The correctional officer arrived and asked Plaintiff to remove the sling 
and give it to Dr. Meyers. ( Id.). Plaintiff complied with the request. ( Id.). Plaintiff asserts 
that the incident left him experiencing excruciating pain in his left shoulder, “wors[e] 
than ever before.” (Id.). The pain was so severe that it woke him up every hour each night. 
(Id.). Plaintiff believes that Dr. Myers’s assault exacerbated his shoulder injury. (Id.). 
 Plaintiff asserts that he then engaged in a “campaign of grievances.” (Doc. 16, 6). 
In the grievances, he complained about being denied tramadol and his continual left 
shoulder pain. (Id.). Plaintiff was referred to a specialist on May 27, 2025, and he had an 
 
2 In the Statement of Claim, Plaintiff asserts that Dr. Noureldin recommended comparison of the x -ray 
results with a prior exam if available and a three -month follow-up x-ray. (Doc. 16, p. 7). According to the 
medical records attached to the First Amended C omplaint as exhibits, Dr. Noureldin was the “Ordering 
Physician,” and Dr. Wang reviewed and signed the x-ray report. (Id. at p. 17). Page ID
#<pageID>
Page 4 of 10 
 
appointment with the specialist on September 4, 2025. ( Id. at p. 7). The specialist 
diagnosed Plaintiff with “left shoulder complete rotator cuff tear ,” and prescribed 
tramadol. (Id.). Plaintiff contends that Dr. Meyers caused his torn rotator cuff when Dr. 
Meyers assaulted him on February 15, 2024. ( Id.). As of filing the First Amended 
Complaint, Plaintiff continues to receive his tramadol prescription. (Id.). 
DISCUSSION 
Based on Plaintiff’s allegations and his articulation of his claims, the Court 
designates the following counts: 
Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Meyers for deliberate 
indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical need, his shoulder 
injury and associated pain. 
 
The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, 
unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. Any other claim that is 
mentioned in the First Amended Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be 
considered dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under the Twombly
3 
pleading standard. 
 Plaintiff asserts that beginning with his first appointment with Dr. Meyers on 
November 23, 2023, Dr. Meyers repeatedly provided him with constitutionally 
inadequate medical care for his shoulder injury and associated pain. Plaintiff claims that 
Dr. Meyers canceled his pain medication for monetary reasons and opted for a cheaper 
medicine that was not effective ; failed to schedule Plaintiff for a follow -up x -ray as 
recommended; and forcefully removed a sling from Plaintiff’s shoulder and confiscated 
 
3 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Page ID
#<pageID>
Page 5 of 10 
 
it, causing further injury and pain that went untreated. At this stage of the case, Plaintiff’s 
allegations are sufficient to state a claim against Dr. Meyers for deliberate in difference. 
See Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 655 (7th Cir. 2005) (finding deliberate indifference where 
medical defendants persisted in a course of conservative treatment for eighteen months 
despite no improvement); Sain v. Wood, 512 F.3d 886, 894–95 (7th Cir.2009) (stating that 
deliberate indifference may be inferred when a physician makes a treatment decision that 
falls far afield of accepted professional medical judgment); Swiecicki v. Santos, No. 11-cv-
808-JPG, 2014 WL 1758691, at *3 (S.D. Ill. May 1, 2019) (finding an genuine issue of 
material fact regarding whether a doctor acted with deliberate indifference in delaying 
evaluation and treatment of a painful shoulder ailment ultimately diagnosed as a torn 
rotator cuff and labrum for a period of 7 months and ignoring symptoms of severe pain 
or providing medications that were not effective in controlling that level of pain). Count 
1 therefore survives preliminary review. 
M
OTION FOR RECRUITMENT OF COUNSEL 
 Plaintiff has filed a second motion asking the Court to recruit him counsel . (Doc. 
14). Determining whether to appoint counsel is a two- step analysis. Pruitt v. Mote , 503 
F.3d 647, 654- 55 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc). In short, the Court must make the following 
two inquiries: (1) has the indigent plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel 
or effectively been precluded from doing so, and (2) given the difficulty of the case, does 
the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself. Id. 
 In denying Plaintiff’s first request for court recruited counsel (Doc. 9), the Court 
found that Plaintiff had not met his threshold burden of demonstrating reasonable efforts Page ID
#<pageID>
Page 6 of 10 
 
to find counsel for this particular case. The documentation Plaintiff provided in support 
of his request demonstrated that he had sought counsel to represent him in another civil 
case he is currently litigating in this district, Ebrahimi v. Schroeder-Harber, No. 25-cv-01819-
RJD, but not this case. The Court also determined that Plaintiff was capable of 
representing himself at this early stage. Although English is not his first language, the 
Court observed that he is a college graduate, this is not his first case in federal court, and 
he had the assistance of other inmates. Based on th is information, the Court found that 
he had the ability to draft and submit an amended complaint. 
 In his current Motion, Plaintiff provides a list of reasons why is unable to represent 
himself in this case. He states that (1) he is unable to afford counsel; (2) his imprisonment 
will greatly limit his ability to litigate; (3) the issues involved in this case are complex; (4) 
he has limited access to the law library; (5) he has limited knowledge of the United States 
law; (6) trial will likely involve conflicting testimony and counsel would be better 
positioned to present witnesses and cross examine witne sses; and (7) his English is 
extremely limited . Plaintiff asserts that he has made repeated attempts to obtain 
representation and has written to lawyers, but because he is not a native English speaker, 
he is unable understand the letters that are sent back to him or to h ave a conversation 
over the phone. 
 The current circumstances presented in this case warrant recruitment of counsel. 
It now appears that Plaintiff has made reasonable, yet unsuccessful, attempts to obtain a 
lawyer, and to the extent he has not, the language barrier has precluded him from doing 
so. Furthermore, the Court finds that this case is at the point where the difficulty of Page ID
#<pageID>
Page 7 of 10 
 
litigation exceeds Plaintiff’s ability to litigate pro se. The First Amended Complaint has 
survived merits review and will enter the discovery phase . As discussed, Plaintiff has 
difficulty reading and writing the English language. While he receives assistance from 
other inmates in drafting some documents, it is clear from the record that this help is 
inconsistent. Based on his latest motions ( see Doc. 14, 15, 17, 19) , Plaintiff lacks the 
“personal ability” to coherently respond to discovery and any motion f or summary 
judgment that may be filed. See Dewitt v. Corizon, Inc ., 760 F.3d 654, 658 (7th Cir. 2014) . 
The Court therefore GRANTS the second Motion for Recruitment of Counsel. (Doc. 14). 
The Court will endeavor to recruit an attorney to represent Plaintiff in a separate order. 
DISPOSITION 
For the reasons stated above, the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 16) survives 
preliminary review pursuant to Section 1915A. COUNT 1 shall proceed against Dr. 
Meyers. 
The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Dr. Meyers the following: (1) Form 5 (Notice 
of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of 
Service of Summons). The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail these forms, a copy of the First 
Amended Complaint, and this Memorandum and Order to the Defendant’s place of 
employment as identified by Plaintiff. If the Defendant fails to sign and return the Waiver 
of Service of Summons (Form 6) to the Clerk within 30 days from the date the forms were 
sent, the Clerk shall take appropriate steps to effect formal service on the Defendant, and 
the Court will require the Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent 
authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Page ID
#<pageID>
Page 8 of 10 
 
If the Defendant cannot be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff, the 
employer shall furnish the Clerk with the Defendant’s current work address, or, if not 
known, his last known address. This information shall be used only for sending the forms 
as directed above or for formally effecting service. Any documentation of the address 
shall be retained only by the Clerk. Address information shall not be maintained in the 
court file or disclosed by the Clerk. 
Because this suit includes allegations regarding physical injury and medical care, 
the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter the standard qualified protective order 
pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. 
Pursuant to Local Rule 8.2(b), the Defendant needs only to respond to the issues 
stated in this Merit Review Order. 
Plaintiff is ADVISED that at the time application was made under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 
for leave to commence this civil action without being required to prepay fees and costs 
or give security for the same, the applicant and (if applicable) his or her attorney were 
deemed to have entered into a stipulation that any unpaid costs taxed against the 
applicant shall be paid from any recovery secured in the action. 
Finally, Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the 
Clerk of Court and each opposing party informed of any change in his address; the Court 
will not independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not 
later than 14 days after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply 
with this order will cause a delay in the transmission of court documents and may result 
in dismissal of this action for want of prosecution. See F
ED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). Page ID
#<pageID>
Page 9 of 10 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
DATED: June 17, 2026 
 
 
 MARK A BEATTY 
 United States Magistrate Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 N
OTICE TO PLAINTIFF Page ID
#<pageID>
Page 10 of 10 
 
The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the appropriate defendants of your 
lawsuit and serve them with a copy of your complaint. After service has been achieved, 
the defendants will enter their appearance and file an Answer to the complaint. It w ill 
likely take at least 60 days from the date of this Order to receive the defendants’ Answers, 
but it is entirely possible that it will take 90 days or more . When all of the defendants 
have filed Answers, the Court will enter a Scheduling Order containin g important 
information on deadlines, discovery, and procedures. Plaintiff is advised to wait until 
counsel has appeared for the defendants before filing any motions, to give the defendants 
notice and an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed before defendants’ 
counsel has filed an appearance will generally be denied as premature. Plaintiff need not 
submit any evidence to the Court at this time, unless otherwise directed by the Court. Page ID
#<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight