United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW CASE AND MANAGEMENT ORDER
A. BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff, proceeding pro se, 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 is currently incarcerated at Centralia Correctional
Center; however, his claims arise out of Western Illinois
Correctional Center (“Western”). Plaintiff
alleges that medical staff at Western failed to conduct blood
testing before prescribing him psychotropic medication. As a
result, Plaintiff alleges his pancreas shut down and he went
into a coma.
states a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need. See Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722,
729 (7th Cir. 2016). To prevail, Plaintiff will
need to show that prison officials acted with deliberate
indifference; negligence is not enough. McGee v.
Adams, 721 F.3d 474, 481 (7th Cir. 2013)
(“Even gross negligence is insufficient to impose
names an unknown psychiatrist and an unknown doctor as
defendants. In order to aid in identifying these Doe doctors,
the court will add Warden Jeff Korte as a defendant. See
Donald v. Cook Co. Sheriff's Dept., 95 F.3d 548 (7th
Cir. 1996)(the court may allow the case to proceed to
discovery against a high-level official with the expectation
that he will aid in identifying any Doe defendants.) Once
those individuals have been identified, defendant Korte may
move to be dismissed from the lawsuit.
Court will dismiss Western Illinois Correctional Center as a
defendant. The facility is not a person, or a policy-making
body that can be sued under § 1983. See Powell v.
Cook County Jail, 814 F.Supp. 757, 758 (N.D. Ill. 1993)
(holding the Cook County Jail was not a person under Section
1983); Wright v. Porter County, 2013 WL 1176199, *2
(N.D. Inc. Mar. 19, 2013). The Court will also dismiss
Wexford Health Sources as a defendant without prejudice to
amendment as no plausible inference currently exists that the
alleged constitutional violations were caused by a Wexford
policy or practice. See Whiting v. Wexford Health
Sources, Inc., 839 F.3d 658, 664 (7th Cir.
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 deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need against defendants Korte, John Doe
Psychiatrist, and John Doe Doctor. 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