United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
A. BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff, proceeding pro se, and currently
incarcerated at the Hill Correctional Center, was granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The case is now
before the court for a merit review of plaintiff's
claims. The court is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to
“screen” the plaintiff's complaint, and
through such process to identify and dismiss any legally
insufficient claim, or the entire action if warranted. A
claim is legally insufficient if it “(1) is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
reviewing the complaint, the court accepts the factual
allegations as true, liberally construing them in the
plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d
645, 649 (7thCir. 2013). However, conclusory
statements and labels are insufficient. Enough facts must be
provided to “state a claim for relief that is plausible
on its face.” Alexander v. U.S., 721 F.3d 418,
422 (7th Cir. 2013)(citation omitted).
plaintiff filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 alleging that Defendant Hardy, a correctional officer,
caused a food tray to spill onto the ground after forcefully
pushing it through the chuckhole and stating, “since
you like to write grievances and shit write this up.”
The plaintiff alleges that he and another inmate tried to
explain the situation to Defendant Backett, a correctional
major, who then threw a cup of hot water on the
plaintiff's hands. Defendants Backett, Stevens, Hardy,
and Cropp then began smashing the plaintiff's wrists and
elbow in the chuckhole. The plaintiff alleges he suffered
bruising and that he was denied medical treatment for at
least 4 hours following the incident. The plaintiff alleges
that he received pain medication for his injuries. The
plaintiff alleges that another inmate was also injured during
this incident. The plaintiff claims Nurse Hailey was made
aware of plaintiff's injuries during her rounds but
failed to provide medical attention.
plaintiff states a First Amendment claim for retaliation, and
Eighth Amendment claims for excessive force and deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need. The plaintiff makes
specific allegations against Defendants Backett, Stevens,
Hardy, Cropp and Hailey, but alleges only that Warden Dorethy
was made aware of plaintiff's injuries and, in fact,
ordered medical attention for plaintiff. “To be liable
under [Section] 1983, an individual defendant must have
caused or particpated in a constitutional deprivation.
“Pepper v. Village of Oak Park, 430 F.3d 809,
810 (7th Cir. 2005)(citations omitted). Warden
Dorethy will be dismissed.
Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, the court finds that the plaintiff states a
First Amendment retaliation claim and an Eighth Amendment
claim for excessive force against Defendants Hardy, Backett,
Stevens and Cropp, The plaintiff also states an Eighth
Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need against Defendants Hardy, Backett, Stevens,
Cropp and Nurse Hailey. Any additional claims shall not be
included in the case, except at the court's discretion on
motion by a party for good cause shown or pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
case is now in the process of service. The plaintiff is
advised to wait until counsel has appeared for the defendants
before filing any motions, in order 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. The
plaintiff need not submit any evidence to the court at this
time, unless otherwise directed by the court.
court will attempt service on the defendants by mailing each
defendant a waiver of service. The defendants have 60 days
from the date the waiver is sent to file an answer. If the
defendants have not filed answers or appeared through counsel
within 90 days of the entry of this order, the plaintiff may
file a motion requesting the status of service. After the
defendants have been served, the court will enter an order
setting discovery and dispositive motion deadlines.
respect to a defendant who no longer works at the address
provided by the plaintiff, the entity for whom that defendant
worked while at that address shall provide to the clerk said
defendant's current work address, or, if not known, said
defendant's forwarding address. This information shall be
used only for effectuating service. Documentation of
forwarding addresses shall be retained only by the clerk and
shall not be maintained in the public docket nor disclosed by
defendants shall file an answer within 60 days of the date
the waiver is sent by the clerk. A motion to dismiss is not
an answer. The answer should include all defenses appropriate
under the Federal Rules. The answer and subsequent pleadings
shall be to the issues and claims stated in this opinion. In
general, an answer sets forth the defendants' positions.
The court does not rule on the merits of those positions
unless and until a motion is filed by the defendants.
Therefore, no response to the answer is necessary or will be
district uses electronic filing, which means that, after
defense counsel has filed an appearance, defense counsel will
automatically receive electronic notice of any motion or
other paper filed by the plaintiff with the clerk. The
plaintiff does not need to mail to defense counsel copies of
motions and other papers that the plaintiff has filed with
the clerk. However, this does not apply to discovery requests
and responses. Discovery requests and responses are not filed
with the clerk. The plaintiff must mail his discovery
requests and responses directly to defendants' counsel.
Discovery requests or responses sent to the clerk will be
returned unfiled, unless they are attached to and the subject
of a motion to compel. Discovery does not begin until defense
counsel has filed an appearance and the court has entered a
scheduling order, which will explain the discovery process in
Counsel for the defendants is hereby granted leave to depose
the plaintiff at his place of confinement. Counsel for the
defendants shall arrange the time for the deposition.
plaintiff shall immediately notify the court, in writing, of
any change in his mailing address and telephone number. The
plaintiff's failure to notify the court of a change in
mailing address or phone ...