United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
CHRISTOPHER O. BROWN, Plaintiff,
PONTIAC CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Defendants.
MERIT REVIEW OPINION
MYERSCOUGH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
proceeds pro se from his incarceration in Menard Correctional
Center. His Complaint is before the Court for a merit review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This section requires the
Court to identify cognizable claims stated by the Complaint
or dismiss claims that are not cognizable. In reviewing the
complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as true,
liberally construing them in Plaintiff's favor and taking
Plaintiff's pro se status into account. Turley v.
Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 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
(7thCir. 2013)(quoted cite omitted).
alleges that he has been prescribed psychotropic medications,
which he must take every night to keep his mental issues at
bay. During the month of August 2016, Plaintiff was
transferred to the Pontiac Correctional Center on a temporary
writ. Plaintiff was repeatedly refused his psychotropic
medicines for days at a time despite his repeated pleas to
nurses and correctional officers.
allegations state a plausible Eighth Amendment claim for
deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical
need for his prescribed medicines. However, Plaintiff names
no Defendants. Only the individuals who were personally
responsible for denying Plaintiff his medications may be sued
and, perhaps, Wexford Health Sources, Inc., if the
constitutional deprivation was caused by that company's
failure to implement a policy to ensure the continuation of
prescribed medicines for inmates on temporary writs. At this
point, the Warden of Pontiac and Wexford Health Sources,
Inc., will be listed as Defendants. Once they have appeared
through counsel, Plaintiff must send a discovery request to
defense counsel seeking the names of the correctional and
medical staff assigned to his housing unit in August 2016 at
separate matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff marked the
“no” checkbox to the question asking whether the
grievance process is complete. An inmate must complete the
entire grievance process, including appeals, before filing a
lawsuit. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). However, failure to
exhaust is an affirmative defense that must be raised by
Defendants unless the defense is plainly obvious from the
complaint. The determination would be premature on this
IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, the Court finds that Plaintiff states an Eighth
Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to his serious
medical need for prescribed psychotropic medications. This
case proceeds solely on the claims identified in this
paragraph. 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.
Michael Melvin (Warden at Pontiac Correctional Center) and
Wexford Health Sources, Inc., are added as Defendants.
Pontiac Correctional Center is terminated as a Defendant.
case is now in the process of service. Plaintiff is advised
to wait until counsel has appeared for Defendants before
filing any motions, in order to give 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. Plaintiff need not submit
any evidence to the Court at this time, unless otherwise
directed by the Court.
Court will attempt service on Defendants by mailing each
Defendant a waiver of service. Defendants have 60 days from
the date the waiver is sent to file an Answer. If Defendants
have not filed Answers or appeared through counsel within 90
days of the entry of this order, Plaintiff may file a motion
requesting the status of service. After 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 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 Defendants' positions. The
Court does not rule on the merits of those positions unless
and until a motion is filed by Defendants. Therefore, no
response to the answer is necessary or will be considered.
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 Plaintiff with the Clerk. Plaintiff does
not need to mail to Defense counsel copies of motions and
other papers that 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. 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