United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW OPINION
MYERSCOUGH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
proceeds pro se from his incarceration in Menard Correctional
Center regarding incidents which occurred in the Illinois
River Correctional Center from June 30, 2016 to July 2, 2016.
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 (7th
Cir. 2013)(quoted cite omitted).
alleges that on June 30, 2016, during his escort to
segregation with his hands cuffed behind his back, he was
repeatedly slammed to the ground, and his head was rammed
into several walls. He alleges that he was refused medical
attention for his injuries and that the property in his cell
was destroyed while he was in the segregation cell, including
mail from family, family photos, and legal papers. He was
allegedly written a false disciplinary report to cover up the
excessive force, which resulted in his punishment of one year
in segregation and a disciplinary transfer. His request for
witnesses at the disciplinary hearing was denied, as well as
his request for the disciplinary committee to review the
states plausible Eighth Amendment claims for excessive force
and deliberate indifference to his injuries from that
excessive force. He may also state a First Amendment free
speech or retaliation claim based on the alleged destruction
of his mail, photos, and legal papers. Lastly, he states a
procedural due process claim based on the year of segregation
imposed as a result of the false disciplinary ticket.
However, Plaintiff will need to name as defendants the
individuals on the disciplinary committee. Additionally,
Plaintiff is advised that he may be barred from proceeding on
the procedural due process claim if he lost good time.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, the Court finds that Plaintiff states the
following constitutional claims: Eighth Amendment claims for
excessive force and deliberate indifference to his injuries
from that excessive force; First Amendment free speech and/or
retaliation claim based on the alleged destruction of his
mail, photos, and legal papers; and, a Fourteenth Amendment
procedural due process claim based on the year of segregation
imposed as a result of the false disciplinary ticket. 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.
Illinois Department of Corrections is dismissed as a
Defendant because the IDOC is not a “person”
subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
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
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 Defendants is hereby granted leave to depose
Plaintiff at his place of confinement. Counsel for Defendants
shall arrange the time for the deposition.
Plaintiff shall immediately notify the Court, in writing, of
any change in his mailing address and telephone number.
Plaintiff's failure to notify the Court of a change in
mailing address or phone ...