United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
SCOTT A. HAYCRAFT, Plaintiff,
JAMES VAZZY, et al., Defendants.
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
A. BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cause is before the court for a merit review of the
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
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 (7th Cir. 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
plaintiff, proceeding pro se, files this lawsuit pursuant 42
U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Montgomery County jail
officials have delayed administration of previously
prescribed medications, delayed medical treatment for a
broken collar bone, and have refused to provide medical
treatment following an incident where he was sexually
assaulted. The plaintiff alleges he was housed in a
“drunk tank” for two weeks without running water
or the ability to flush stool down the toilet. The plaintiff
also alleges that the food has mouse droppings in it, that he
was served chips with spit on them, and that the jail
officials' reliance on other inmates to deliver food
sometimes resulted in food not reaching his cell.
the plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the Montgomery
County Jail, his constitutional rights are derived from the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See e.g.,
Kingsley v. Hendrickson, __ U.S. __, 135 S.Ct. 2466,
2475 (2015); Budd v. Motley, 711 F.3d 840, 842 (7th
Cir. 2013). However, the Seventh Circuit has “found it
convenient and entirely appropriate to apply the same
standard to claims arising under the Fourteenth Amendment
(detainees) and Eighth Amendment (convicted prisoners)
without differentiation.' ” Board v.
Farnham, 394 F.3d 469, 478 (7th Cir. 2005) quoting
Henderson v. Sheahan, 196 F.3d 839, 845 n.2 (7th Cir.
plaintiff states a claim for deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need for the delay in administering
prescribed medications and treating his broken collar bone,
and refusal to provide medical treatment after he was
sexually assaulted. The plaintiff also states a
conditions-of-confinement claim for his two-week stay in the
“drunk tank.” See Budd v. Motley, 711
F.3d 840, 842 (7th Cir. 2013) (To state a
conditions-of-confinement claim, the plaintiff must allege
that he suffered a sufficiently serious deprivation and that
jail officials were deliberately indifferent to a serious
risk of harm). Plaintiff will have to identify those jail
officials responsible for the actions that he alleges.
plaintiff's allegations that the food was poorly
prepared, contained foreign objects, or was served cold are
not sufficient to state a claim. See Drake v.
Velasco, 207 F.Supp.2d 809, 812 (N.D. Ill. 2002). The
plaintiff's claim for the alleged double-celling of
inmates is insufficient to state a claim, unless jail
officials knew that his alleged sexual assailant posed a
significant risk of harm to plaintiff. The Court will dismiss
these claims, without prejudice, and give plaintiff an
opportunity to replead these claims with more specificity.
THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, the court finds that the plaintiff
states a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim for
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need and
conditions of confinement against the named defendants.
2. If plaintiff wishes to proceed on his claims of failure to
protect and failing to provide him with a nutritionally
inadequate diet, he must file an amended complaint within
thirty (30) days. The plaintiff must specifically allege how
his constitutional rights were violated and who was
responsible for the alleged deprivation. Any amended
complaint must contain all claims against all defendants.
Piecemeal complaints are not permitted.
3. This 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.
4. The 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
5. With 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 the clerk.
6. The 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 ...