United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
December 9, 2005.
JAMES HOUSTON, Plaintiff,
DANIEL QUICK, Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: HAROLD BAKER, District Judge
Case Management Order #1
This case is before the court for a merit review under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The merit review standard is the same as a motion
to dismiss standard. Pro se complaints are liberally construed.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), reh'g denied,
405 U.S. 948 (1972). The allegations are taken as true, and a claim can be
dismissed for failure to state a claim only if it appears "beyond
doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of
his claim which would entitle him to relief." Haines,
404 U.S. at 521.
The plaintiff, currently incarcerated in Pinckneyville
Correctional Center, alleges that Defendant Quick was
deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's serious medical needs
at Illinois River Correctional Center. Specifically, he alleges
that Defendant Quick, a registered nurse, refused to examine and
treat him for complaints of severe chest pains. According to the
plaintiff, he suffered a mild stroke during the night after
The plaintiff states an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. See, e.g., Chapman v.
Keltner, 241 F.3d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 2001). At this stage,
severe chest pains allow an inference that the plaintiff suffered
from a serious medical need, and Defendant Quick's failure to
examine the plaintiff or offer any treatment gives rise to an
inference of deliberate indifference. This case will therefore
proceed per the standard procedures.
Also before the court is the plaintiff's motion for appointment
of counsel. Before the court can consider the merits of the
motion, the plaintiff must show that he has made reasonable
attempts to obtain a lawyer on his own. Zarnes v. Rhodes,
64 F.3d 285, 288 (7th Cir. 1995). He has not shown what attempts he
has made to secure his own counsel, and therefore his motion will
be denied, with leave to renew. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) The merit review hearing scheduled for December
20, 2005, is cancelled as unnecessary. Pursuant to
its merit review of the complaint under
28 U.S.C. Section 1915A, the court finds that the plaintiff
states a federal claim for deliberate indifference to
his serious medical needs.
2) This case shall proceed solely on the federal
claim identified in paragraph one above. Any claim
not set forth in paragraph one above shall not be
included in the case, except in the court's
discretion on motion by a party for good cause shown,
or pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
3) The plaintiff's motion for counsel is denied (d/e
4) The plaintiff's motion to amend to add a
deliberate indifference claim is denied as moot (d/e
4). The plaintiff's Complaint already states a
deliberate indifference claim.
5) The necessary deficiency orders are directed to be
entered, if any.
6) After the plaintiff satisfies all deficiencies, a
Prisoner Scheduling Order shall be entered directing
service and setting a Rule 16 conference date.
7) A copy of this Case Management Order shall be
served with the Complaint and Scheduling Order.
8) The defendant shall file an answer within the time
prescribed by Local Rule. A motion to dismiss is not
an answer. The answer must be considered a responsive
pleading under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)
and should include all defenses appropriate under the
Federal Rules. The answer and subsequent pleadings
shall be to the issues and claims stated in this Case
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.