United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
MICHAEL M. MIHM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
proceeding pro se, pursues a § 1983 action for
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs while he
was incarcerated at the Pontiac Correctional Center
(“Pontiac”). The case is before the Court for a
merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In reviewing
the Complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as
true, liberally construing them in Plaintiff's favor.
Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649-51 (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. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th
Cir. 2013)(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
While the pleading standard does not require “detailed
factual allegations”, it requires “more than an
accusation.” Wilson v. Ryker, 451 Fed.Appx.
588, 589 (7th Cir. 2011) quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
claims that he has been subjected to deliberate indifference
to his hip pain on a continuing basis from March or April
2013, to the present. Plaintiff apparently suffered a gunshot
wound to the hip and leg, prior to his incarceration. He
underwent surgery on an undisclosed date and had a metal rod
placed in his leg. In March or April 2013, Plaintiff began
experiencing pain at the surgical site. He describes the pain
as “excruciating” and indicates that it has
restricted his activities of daily living.
alleges that he has complained to medical director Dr.
Tilden, Dr. Ojelade and Nurse Hansen since 2013. He claims
that he has only been prescribed pain medication which has
been ineffective and which has caused him stomach problems.
On March 10, 2016, Plaintiff's leg was x-rayed and a
fracture in the implanted metal rod was found. He attaches a
copy of the x-ray report which notes “…
possibility of infection cannot be excluded. A follow-up
study is recommended.” [ECF 1-1 p. 1]. Plaintiff
alleges that despite this recommendation, he has received no
alleges all three Defendants have been deliberately
indifferent in not adequately treating his pain, failing to
discover the source of the pain and failing to provide a
referral to a specialist. He claims compensatory and punitive
damages and requests injunctive relief, that he undergo
well established that deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need is actionable as a violation of the Eighth
Amendment. Hayes v. Snyder, 546 F.3d 516, 522 (7th
Cir. 2008). A deliberate indifference must establish
“(1) an objectively serious medical condition; and (2)
an official's deliberate indifference to that
condition.” Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742,
750 (7th Cir. 2011). Deliberate indifference is proven by
demonstrating that a prison official knows of a substantial
risk of harm to an inmate and “either acts or fails to
act in disregard of that risk.” Id. at 751.
Plaintiff states enough at this juncture to proceed on claims
of deliberate indifference against Defendants Tilden, Ojelade
and Hansen. Is unclear at this point, however, whether Nurse
Hansen would have had the authority to refer Plaintiff to a
specialist. This can be more particularly determined as the
IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
case shall proceed solely on the deliberate indifference
claims against Dr. Tilden, Dr. Ojelade and Nurse Hansen,
identified herein. Any claims not identified will not be
included in the case, except in the Court's discretion
upon motion by a party for good cause shown, or by leave of
court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
Plaintiff files  a motion for recruitment of pro
bono counsel but does not indicate that he attempted to
secure counsel on his own. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d
647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007) more.  is DENIED at this time.
In the event that Plaintiff renews his motion for appointment
of counsel, he is to provide copies of the letters sent to,
and received from, prospective counsel.
Clerk is directed to send to each Defendant pursuant to this
District's internal procedures: 1) a Notice of Lawsuit
and Request for Waiver of Service; 2) a Waiver of Service; 3)
a copy of the Complaint; and 4) a copy of this Order.
4. If a
Defendant fails to sign and return a Waiver of Service to the
Clerk within 30 days after the Waiver is sent, the Court will
take appropriate steps to effect formal service on that
Defendant and will require that Defendant pay the full costs
of formal service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4(d)(2). If a Defendant no longer works at the address
provided by Plaintiff, the entity for which Defendant worked
at the time identified in the Complaint shall provide to the
Clerk Defendant's current work address, or, if not known,
Defendant's forwarding address. This information will be
used only for purposes of effecting service. Documentation of
forwarding addresses will be maintained only by the Clerk and
shall not be maintained in the public docket nor disclosed by
Defendants shall file an answer within the prescribed by
Local Rule. A Motion to Dismiss is not an answer. The answer
it to include all defenses appropriate under the Federal
Rules. The answer and subsequent pleadings are to address the
issues and claims identified in this Order.
Plaintiff shall serve upon any Defendant who has been served,
but who is not represented by counsel, a copy of every filing
submitted by Plaintiff for consideration by the Court, and
shall also file a certificate of service stating the date on
which the copy was mailed. Any paper received by a District
Judge or Magistrate Judge that has not been filed with the
Clerk or that fails to include a required certificate of
service will be stricken by the Court.
counsel has appeared for a Defendant, Plaintiff need not send
copies of filings to that Defendant or to that
Defendant's counsel. Instead, the Clerk will file
Plaintiff's document electronically and send notice of
electronic filing to defense counsel. The notice of
electronic filing shall constitute notice to Defendant
pursuant to Local Rule 5.3. If ...