United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
DONNIE R. BARRETT, Plaintiff,
GREGG SCOTT, et al., Defendants.
MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
A. BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
plaintiff, proceeding pro se, a civil detainee at the
Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility
(“Rushville”) is requesting leave to proceed
under a reduced payment procedure for indigent plaintiffs who
are institutionalized but are not prisoners as defined in 28
U.S.C. Section 1915(h).
“privilege to proceed without posting security for
costs and fees is reserved to the many truly impoverished
litigants who, within the District Court's sound
discretion, would remain without legal remedy if such
privilege were not afforded to them.” Brewster v.
North Am. Van Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d 649, 651
(7th Circ. 1972). Additionally, a court must
dismiss cases proceeding in forma pauperis “at
any time” if the action is frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a claim, even if part of the filing fee has
been paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)(2). Accordingly, this
court grants leave to proceed in forma pauperis only
if the complaint states a federal action.
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).
plaintiff filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 alleging that Rushville officials have denied him all
treatment and educational opportunities because the mother of
a victim in his underlying sex case conviction works as a
security therapy aide at the facility. Plaintiff stated that
he is isolated to one pod, unable to have library access, and
that the Warden and other officials won't even speak to
civil detainee, plaintiff's constitutional rights are
derived from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. See, e.g., Kingsley v. Hendrickson, -----
U.S. -----, 135 S.Ct. 2466, 2475 (2015); Budd v.
Motley 711 F.3d 840, 842 (7th Cir. 2013).
However, the Seventh Circuit has “found it convenient
and entirely appropriate to apply the same standard to claims
arising under the Fourteenth Amendment (detainees) and Eighth
Amendment (convicted prisoners) ‘without
differentiation.'” Board v. Farnham, 394
F.3d 469, 478 (7th Cir. 2005) quoting
Henderson v. Sheahan, 196 F.3d 839, 845 n.2
(7th Cir. 1999).
states claims for deliberate indifference to a serious mental
health need as his allegations suggest that TDF officials are
denying him treatment for impermissible reasons. The case
will proceed accordingly.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, the Court finds that the plaintiff states a
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim for deliberate
indifference to a serious mental health need against all
defendants. 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