United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
A. BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
plaintiff, proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated in
the Danville Correctional Center (“Danville”),
was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The case is
now before the court for a merit review of the
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.
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
(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 (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
plaintiff filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 alleging that he suffers from chronic knee pain that was
eventually diagnosed as a meniscus tear and having a
“flexion contracture.” Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant Lochard, the prison physician, and Mary Miller, the
healthcare administrator, refused to follow the
recommendations of specialists in treating his knee
conditions, at one point failing to provide any treatment.
Plaintiff also suggests that this denial of treatment was
caused by an unconstitutional policy or practice implemented
by Wexford Health Sources (“Wexford”), the
company contracted to provide medical service at the prison.
states a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need based upon the defendants' alleged refusal
to provide treatment and follow a specialist's
recommendations. Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722
(7th Cir. 2016). Plaintiff also states an official policy
claim against Wexford. Monell v. Dept of Social Serv. of
City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
addition, the Court is aware from other litigation that
Defendant Mary Miller is deceased. In light of this fact, the
Court will not attempt service on her. Instead, the Court
will name Victor Calloway, the warden of Danville
Correctional Center, as a defendant for purposes of filing a
Notice of Suggestion of Death pursuant to Rule 25 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and identifying any
successor or representative of Mary Miller's interests.
See Donald v. Cook Cnty.Sheriff's Dep't, 95
F.3d 548, 555-56 (7thCir. 1996). Plaintiff is
advised that he must comply with the requirements of Rule 25
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as it relates to
substitution of defendants.
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 Miller and Lochard,
and an official policy claim against Wexford. 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
of a motion to compel. Discovery does not begin until defense
counsel has filed an appearance and the court has entered a
scheduling order, which will explain the discovery process in
Counsel for the defendants is hereby granted leave to depose
the plaintiff at his place of confinement. Counsel for the