Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Matthew E. Horton (##2011-1224145 v. Yank Yu Do

February 27, 2012

MATTHEW E. HORTON (##2011-1224145)
v.
YANK YU DO



Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer than Assigned Judge

CASE TITLE

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

The court denies Plaintiff's motion for leave to file in forma pauperis [3] without prejudice to reconsideration should he renew his motion in compliance with this order. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is granted thirty days to: (1) submit an in forma pauperis application on the enclosed form with the information required by § 1915(a)(2) or to pay the full $350 filing fee and (2) submit an amended complaint (plus a judge's copy and service copies). Plaintiff should also confirm that he has fully exhausted his administrative remedies as set forth below. The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff submit an in forma pauperis application, an amended civil rights complaint form with instructions, and a copy of this order. Failure to fully comply with this order will result in summary dismissal of this case in its entirety on the understanding that Plaintiff does not wish to pursue his claims in federal court at this time.

O [For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff, Matthew E. Horton, a pretrial detainee at Cook County Jail, has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff submitted an in forma pauperis application but it is incomplete. Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 3.3 requires that persons lodging new lawsuits must either pay the statutory filing fee or file a petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, using the court's form and signing under penalty of perjury. The form requires inmates to obtain a certificate stating the amount of money they have on deposit in their trust fund account. As explained below, the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") also requires inmates to provide a certified copy of their trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the 6-month period immediately preceding the lodging of the complaint. Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application is not certified by the trust fund officer and does not include the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the 6-month period immediately preceding the lodging of the complaint.

The PLRA requires all inmates to pay the full filing fee, even those whose cases are summarily dismissed. The court must assess an initial partial filing fee on all inmates who bring suit in an amount that is 20% of the greater of:

(A) the average monthly deposits in the prisoner's account; or (B) the average monthly balance in the prisoner's account for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The court will authorize prison officials to deduct the initial filing fee payment directly from Plaintiff's trust fund account. Thereafter, correctional authorities having custody of Plaintiff will have authority (and are required) to make monthly payments to the court of 20% of the preceding month's income credited to the trust fund account until such time as the full filing fee is paid.

To enable the court to make the necessary initial assessment of the filing fee, Plaintiff must "submit a certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal, obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). If Plaintiff wants to proceed he must file a new motion for leave to file in forma pauperis on the court's form and have an authorized official(s) provide information regarding Plaintiff's trust fund account(s), including a copy of his trust fund account(s). Plaintiff must also write the case number in the space provided for it.

The court now engages in the prompt review of Plaintiff's complaint that is called for by 28 U.S.C. § 1915. in the Statement of Claim that appears in the court's form complaint, Plaintiff states "Dr. Yo Do Yank 12/24/11 Cook County Jail 2600 S. California" Plaintiff also attaches another page to the form complaint entitled "(Medical Malpractice)." This attachment states that Plaintiff is filing this 'complaint' against Dr. Yank because he denied Plaintiff a bottom bunk permit. Plaintiff alleges that h had surgery on his foot and ankle prior to his detention and when he entered Cook County Jail on December 24, 2011, he "complained of this disability & was denied or misjudged by the M.D. whom cared for my sick needs." Plaintiff also alleges that he is a diabetic. Plaintiff names Dr. Yank as the sole Defendant.

Plaintiff's present complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.. Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," in order to " 'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.' " Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)); Windy City Metal Fabricators & Supply, Inc. v. CIT Tech. Fin. Servs., Inc., 536 F.3d 663, 667 (7th Cir. 2008).

To satisfy this requirement the "complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bonte v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 624 F.3d 461, 463 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)). Plaintiff's minimal allegations are insufficient, as they fail to provide the named Defendant sufficient notice of the claims against him. Other than his admission date into Cook County Jail, Plaintiff provides no other dates as to when he was allegedly denied proper medical care. It is also not clear whether the named Defendant was the individual that has denied Plaintiff the proper medical care.

A claim of medical malpractice does not arise under federal law. In order for Plaintiff to state a claim under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a defendant must have acted under color of state law and violated a constitutional right. See Waubanascum v. Shawano County, 416 F.3d 658, 665 (7th Cir. 2005). Mere negligence nor gross negligence are sufficient to give rise to liability under Section 1983. See Lewis v. Anderson, 308 F.3d 768, 773 (7th Cir. 2002). While medical staff must not show deliberated indifference to a detainee's serious medical needs, medical malpractice, negligence, or even gross negligence does not equate to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.