The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge
Plaintiff Joe Champs, an inmate in the Tamms Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Champs initiated this action in state court, but it was subsequently removed to federal court. Several defendants have already entered an appearance, and several motions are now pending.
MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS
In this motion (Doc. 12), Champs seeks to dismiss his claims against Defendants Moore, Benton and Bartley. Withdrawal of his claims is his right, see FED.R.CIV.P. 41(a)(1)(i), and this motion is GRANTED. It follows that the motion to stay (Doc. 14) filed by Moore and Benton is now MOOT.
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Champs seeks entry of default judgment against Defendant Terry Caliper, who has not yet entered an appearance in this action. However, nothing in the record indicates that service has been effected upon Caliper, and the Court has not yet directed her to file a response to the first amended complaint. Thus, this motion (Doc. 22) is DENIED.
In this action, Champs states that he injured his knee, requiring medical treatment. He alleges that Defendants Powers and Caliper has consistently denied his requests for medical treatment. Thus, he must endure persistent pain and suffering.
A deliberate indifference claim requires both an objectively serious risk of harm and a subjectively culpable state of mind. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994); Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2005). A deliberate indifference claim premised upon inadequate medical treatment requires, to satisfy the objective element, a medical condition "that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would perceive the need for a doctor's attention." Greeno, 414 F.3d at 653. The subjective component of a deliberate indifference claim requires that the prison official knew of "a substantial risk of harm to the inmate and disregarded the risk." Id.; Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Mere medical malpractice or a disagreement with a doctor's medical judgment is not deliberate indifference. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 107 (1976); Greeno, 414 F.3d at 653; Estate of Cole by Pardue v. Fromm, 94 F.3d 254, 261 (7th Cir. 1996). Still, a plaintiff's receipt of some medical care does not automatically defeat a claim of deliberate indifference if a fact finder could infer the treatment was "so blatantly inappropriate as to evidence intentional mistreatment likely to seriously aggravate" a medical condition. Snipes v. DeTella, 95 F.3d 586, 592 (7th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted).
Applying these standards to the allegations in the first amended complaint (Doc. 8), the Court is unable to dismiss Champs's claims against Powers or Caliper at this time. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Champs asks the Court to appoint the US Marshal to effect service upon Defendant Caliper. This motion (Doc. 26) is GRANTED. However, because Champs has not sought or been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this ...