United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW OPINION
MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
cause is before the Court for merit review of the pro se
Plaintiff's amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. Plaintiff's initial complaint and motions
to amend were dismissed as a violation of Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See June 15, 2016
Text order. However, Plaintiff was given additional time and
instructions to file an amended complaint clarifying his
intended claims and Defendants. Plaintiff has now filed his
motion for leave to amend which is granted pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. 
reviewing the amended complaint, the Court accepts the
factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in
Plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d
645, 649 (7th Cir. 2103). 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)(quoted cite omitted).
Plaintiff claims his constitutional rights were violated at
Western Illinois Correctional Center by Lieutenants Zenk,
Sheffler, and Fischel; Correctional Officers Buller, Collins,
and Wohlfeil; and Adjustment Committee Members Richard Davis
and Christopher Icenogle. Plaintiff claims on September 20,
2015, Defendants Zenk, Sheffler, Fischel, Buller, and Collins
repeatedly used excessive force against Plaintiff while he
was handcuffed. Plaintiff's complaint explains how each
of the Defendants were involved in the continued assault.
Plaintiff has adequately alleged the Defendants violated his
Eighth Amendment rights by the use of excessive force.
says he suffers with several cuts after the assault, but the
same Defendants refused to provide him medical care.
Plaintiff says he still has no feeling in two fingers. For
the purposes of notice pleading, Plaintiff has also alleged
Defendants Zenk, Sheffler, Fischel, Buller, and Collins
violated his Eighth Amendment rights when they were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical condition.
says Defendants Icenogle and Davis retaliated against him
when they served on the Adjustment Committee apparently
considering a disciplinary ticket stemming from the same
incident. To state a retaliation claim, Plaintiff must allege
that “(1) he engaged in activity protected by the First
Amendment; (2) he suffered a deprivation that would likely
deter First Amendment activity in the future; and (3) the
First Amendment activity was at least a motivating factor in
the [d]efendants' decision to take the retaliatory
action.” Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 546
(7th Cir.2009) (internal quotations omitted). Plaintiff has
failed to allege he engaged in a protected activity which
prompted a retaliatory action. Therefore, he has failed to
articulate a retaliation claim.
says Defendants Icenogle and Davis also violated his due
process rights when they failed to properly investigate the
claims against him and instead sided with the officers.
Plaintiff does not state what discipline he received as a
result of the hearing.
satisfy due process, an inmate facing disciplinary charges
must be given: (1) advance written notice of the charges
against him; (2) the opportunity to appear before an
impartial hearing body to contest the charges; (3) the
opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary
evidence in his defense; and (4) a written statement
summarizing the reasons for the discipline imposed. See
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-69 (1974);
Cain v. Lane, 857 F.2d 1139, 1145 (7th Cir.1988). In
addition, the decision of the adjustment committee must be
supported by “some evidence.” Black v.
Lane, 22 F.3d 1395 (7th Cir.1994). The Plaintiff's
disagreement with the depth of the investigation or the
ultimate outcome does not state a constitutional violation.
Therefore, the Court will dismiss Defendants Icenogle and
Court will also dismiss Defendant Wohlfeil since he is only
mentioned in the caption of the amended complaint. See
Potter v Clark, 497 F.2d 1206, 1207 (7th Cir.
1974)(“Where a complaint alleges no specific act or
conduct on the part of the defendant and the complaint is
silent as to the defendant except for his name appearing in
the caption, the complaint is properly dismissed, even under
the liberal construction to be given pro se
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Plaintiff has renewed his motion for appointment of counsel.
 Plaintiff has no constitutional or statutory right to the
appointment of counsel in this case. In considering the
Plaintiff's motion, the court asks: “(1) has the
indigent Plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain
counsel or been effectively precluded from doing so; and if
so, (2) given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff
appear competent to litigate it himself?” Pruitt v.
Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007), citing
Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319, 322 (7th Cir.1993).
initial motion for appointment of counsel was denied since he
failed to demonstrate any attempt to find counsel on his own.
See June 15, 2016 Text Order. Plaintiff has now
provided copies of letters he received denying his request
for representation. Therefore, the Court must now consider
whether Plaintiff is competent to litigate his claims.
claims before this Court are not complex. His amended
complaint demonstrates he is capable of describing the
incidents of excessive force, his injuries, and his attempts
to obtain medical care. This testimony can be used to show
evidence of deliberate indifference. See Ledford v.
Sullivan, 105 F.3d 354, 358 (7th Cir. 1997)(expert
testimony not necessarily required to establish deliberate
indifference). Through simple discovery requests, Plaintiff
can also obtain a copy of any relevant video recording,
medical records, or incident reports.
once the Defendants are in the case, the Court will enter a
scheduling order which sets deadlines, provide important
information for a pro se litigant, and requires the parties
to provide initial discovery. Based on ...