Swaleh Shafiq Mohammed v. Syed Hussain, Loay Sandouka, and Jehanzeb Sheikh

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois addresses motions to dismiss claims brought by an involuntarily committed detainee under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including deliberate indifference, failure to obtain informed consent, medical malpractice, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court denies Dr. Syed Hussain’s motion to dismiss, allowing the deliberate-indifference, informed-consent, and NIED claims to proceed. It grants Dr. Loay Sandouka’s motion to dismiss with prejudice because the claims were untimely and did not qualify for relation back, continuing-violation treatment, or equitable tolling.

Holdings

1. The complaint plausibly alleged that Dr. Hussain's treatment could have demonstrated an absence of professional judgment because he allegedly continued a medication combination associated with worsening symptoms for several months despite those symptoms and Mohammed's requests for alternative treatment.
2. Mohammed plausibly alleged an informed-consent due-process claim against Dr. Hussain based on the alleged failure to disclose the substantial risk and symptoms of SSRI Syndrome arising from the combined medications.
3. Mohammed plausibly alleged the contemporaneous physical injury or impact required for a direct-victim NIED claim by alleging medication-related vomiting, dizziness, abdominal pain, nausea, and diarrhea.
4. The claims against Dr. Sandouka accrued no later than April 2, 2022, when Mohammed was assaulted, and were untimely when first asserted in the amended complaint filed March 13, 2025.
5. The claims against Dr. Sandouka did not relate back to Mohammed's original complaint because the record did not show a mistake concerning the proper party's identity.
6. Neither the continuing-violation doctrine nor the discovery rule delayed accrual of Mohammed's claims against Dr. Sandouka.
7. Mohammed was not entitled to equitable tolling based on his mental or physical impairments or alleged inability to discover Sandouka's role.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Mohammed plausibly alleged that Dr. Hussain's course of medical treatment demonstrated an absence of professional judgment sufficient to support a Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim.
2. Whether Mohammed plausibly alleged a Fourteenth Amendment informed-consent claim against Dr. Hussain.
3. Whether Mohammed plausibly alleged the contemporaneous physical injury or impact required for his direct-victim negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim against Dr. Hussain.
4. Whether the claims against Dr. Sandouka were timely under the applicable two-year statute of limitations.
5. Whether the claims against Dr. Sandouka related back under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c), qualified for continuing-violation or discovery-rule treatment, or were subject to equitable tolling.

Disposition

other