United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
GARY L. MAYFIELD, Plaintiff,
JOSEPH P. HANKINS, Defendant.
MERIT REVIEW AND MANAGEMENT ORDER
A. BAKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, a civil detainee at the
Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility
(“Rushville”) is requesting leave to proceed
under a reduced payment procedure for indigent plaintiffs who
are institutionalized but are not prisoners as defined in 28
U.S.C. Section 1915(h).
“privilege to proceed without posting security for
costs and fees is reserved to the many truly impoverished
litigants who, within the District Court's sound
discretion, would remain without legal remedy if such
privilege were not afforded to them.” Brewster v.
North Am. Van Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d 649, 651
(7th Circ. 1972). Additionally, a court must
dismiss cases proceeding in forma pauperis “at
any time” if the action is frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a claim, even if part of the filing fee has
been paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)(2). Accordingly, this
court grants leave to proceed in forma pauperis only
if the complaint states a federal action.
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). The court has reviewed
the complaint and has also held a merit review hearing in
order to give the plaintiff a chance to personally explain
his claims to the court.
plaintiff filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 alleging that Rushville officials forced him to share a
room with a resident with whom he has had prior altercations.
Plaintiff alleges that, on at least two occasions, this other
resident threatened plaintiff with physical harm in front of
Rushville officials. Despite these incidents, plaintiff
alleges that Rushville officials ignored his expressed fears
and would not allow plaintiff to refuse housing.
sufficient states a claim for failure to protect from harm.
Though no harm is alleged to have yet occurred, plaintiff is
not required to wait until after an attack to seek judicial
relief. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 845-46
is a civil detainee at Rushville and, therefore, 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 Eight 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. 1999).
IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
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 failure to protect
against the named defendants. 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