United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
A. BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
case is before the court for a merit review of the
plaintiff's amended complaint. 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. §1915A.
reviewing the amended 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).
is incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center
(“Pontiac”). He alleges in his amended complaint
that Defendants Tilden, Hansen, and Ojelade, all physicians
or physician's assistants, prescribed him medication that
was not effective and refused additional diagnostic testing
for a stomach infection. Plaintiff also alleges that
Defendants Chicke, Klellesuik, Caldwell, and Cynthia W., all
nurses, denied him medical treatment in some way, but he
provides little detail concerning these events. Finally,
plaintiff alleges generally that several correctional
officers housed him in unconstitutional conditions.
states a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need against Defendants Tilden, Hansen, and Ojelaide.
See Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722, 729 (7th Cir.
2016). Plaintiff's allegations against the defendant
nurses and other medical professionals do not provide enough
information for the Court to determine if plaintiff states a
constitutional claim. The defendant nurses will be dismissed
without prejudice to amendment.
allegations against the correctional officers are also too
conclusory for the Court to find that plaintiff states a
constitutional claim. In addition, these claims must be
brought in a separate lawsuit. George v. Smith, 507
F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Unrelated
claims against different defendants belong in different
suits.”); Owens v. Godinez, 860 F.3d 434, 436
(7th Cir. 2017) (“[D]istrict courts should not allow
inmates to flout the rules for joining claims and
defendants…or to circumvent the Prison Litigation
Reform Act's fee requirements by combining multiple
lawsuits into a single complaint.”). Therefore, these
claims will be dismissed.
Plaintiff's motion to amend complaint (#15) is granted.
Clerk is directed to docket the amended complaint attached to
Pursuant to its merit review of the amended 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 Tilden, Hansen,
and Ojelaide. All remaining Defendants are dismissed. 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
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