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.

Ezebuiroh v. Korte

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois

March 14, 2017

JERRY EZEBUIROH, Plaintiff,
v.
JEFF KORTE, Warden, et al., Defendants.

          MERIT REVIEW CASE AND MANAGEMENT ORDER

          HAROLD A. BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         The 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.

         In 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.

         The 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.

         Plaintiff 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 constitutional liability.”).

         Plaintiff 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.

         The 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. 2016).

         IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

         1. 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.

         2. This 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.

         3. The 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.

         4. With 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 the clerk.

         5. The 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 considered.

         6. This 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 ...


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.