Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jones v. Estes

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

March 13, 2017

JOSEPH JONES, Plaintiff,
v.
C/O ESTES, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          STACI M. YANDLE United States District Judge

         Before the Court is Plaintiff Joseph Jones' Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 29.) Plaintiff is an inmate with the Illinois Department of Corrections. He seeks to amend his Complaint in order to substitute Stacie Murray for “Stacy” as a defendant, to add Molly McElvain as a defendant, and to add fact allegations and claims. Plaintiff's motion is unopposed and complies with the local rules for amended complaints. Accordingly, the motion is granted.

         Complaints filed by prisoners seeking redress against governmental entities and their employees are subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Therefore, Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint will now be screened.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. (Doc. 1.) The Court screened Plaintiff's initial Complaint, characterizing Plaintiff's claims as follows:

Count 1: An Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendants Stacy, Hill, Estes, and Wolfe failing to protect Plaintiff from his cellmate, Courtney Tolbert.
Count 2: An Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendants Estes and Wolfe for not allowing his to go to the health care unit after the assault by his cellmate, Courtney Tolbert.

         (Doc. 10.) Plaintiff has now submitted a proposed Amended Complaint. (Doc. 29.) The Court characterizes the claims set forth in the Amended Complaint as follows:

Count 1: An Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Defendants Estes, Wolfe, Hill, Murray, and McElvain for failing to protect Plaintiff from his cellmate, Courtney Tolbert.
Count 2: An Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendants Estes and Wolfe for not allowing Plaintiff to go to the health care unit after the assault by his cellmate, Courtney Tolbert.[1]
Count 3: A state law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendants Estes, Wolfe, Hill, Murray, and McElvain for failing to protect Plaintiff from his cellmate, Courtney Tolbert, and not allowing him to go to the health care unit after the assault by his cellmate.[2]
Count 4: A Fourteenth Amendment claim of denial of procedural due process claim against Defendants Estes and Wolfe for Plaintiff's disciplinary proceedings and placement in segregation following the assault by his cellmate, Courtney Tolbert.[3]
Count 5: An Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendants Hill, Murray, and McElvain for failing to report the risk of physical harm by Plaintiff's cellmate, Courtney Tolbert.
Count 6: A Fourteenth Amendment denial of substantive due process claim against Defendants Hill, Estes, Wolfe, Hill, Murray, and McElvain for failing to protect Plaintiff ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.