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 in the Logan 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). 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 she was subjected to a group strip search on
October 31, 2013, in the presence of male and female
correctional officers. Plaintiff alleges that she was
required to lift her breasts, bend over and spread her
buttocks, and squat and cough. Plaintiff also alleges she was
forced to stand naked for long periods of time and that male
correctional officers made derogatory remarks about her body
parts and odors. At the hearing, Plaintiff testified that she
was searched by Defendants Pasley and Denning.
states an Eighth Amendment claim based upon the group strip
search against Defendants Pasley and Denning. See King v.
McCarty, 781 F.3d 889, 897 (7th Cir. 2015)
(“A prisoner states an Eighth Amendment claim when
[s]he plausibly alleges that the strip-search in question was
motivated by a desire to harass or humiliate rather than by a
legitimate justification….”). Plaintiff also
suggests that this search was part of an Illinois Department
of Corrections training exercise. Thus, a plausible inference
exists that the prison's former and current wardens were
aware of this activity, and either condoned it or turned a
blind eye. See Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987, 991
(7th Cir. 1996).
point, no plausible inference exists that the remaining
defendants personally participated in the alleged strip
search as it relates to Plaintiff's claims. Id.
Therefore, these defendants will be dismissed without
prejudice to amendment. In addition, Plaintiff's claims
may be time barred, but that determination should be made
upon a more developed record. See Sidney Hillman Health
Ctr. of Rochester v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 782 F.3d 922,
928 (7th Cir. 2015).
Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, the court finds that the plaintiff states an
Eighth Amendment claim for cruel and unusual punishment
against Defendants Pasley, Denning, Locke, and Brannon. Any
additional claims and defendants 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