United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
E. SHADID, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
cause is before the Court for merit review of the
Plaintiff's 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.
a pro se prisoner, claims Defendants Major Susan Prentice,
Dr. Andrew Tilden, and Nurses Michelle, Becky, Sabrina and
Jodie violated his constitutional rights at Pontiac
Correctional Center. Plaintiff suffers from “neurogenic
bladder disorder” which requires self-catheterization.
(Comp., p. 24). Plaintiff claims each Defendant is well aware
of his medical needs, but they have continually denied him
the supplies he needs for catheterization leaving him to
suffer in pain. Plaintiff's complaint outlines the
specific dates each nurse has refused his requests from
October of 2016 through January of 2017. Plaintiff says
Defendant Prentice has refused to notify medical personnel
when he needs help, and Plaintiff has also discussed the
problem with Dr. Tilden, but the doctor has refused to take
any action. Plaintiff has adequately alleged each of the
named Defendants was deliberately indifferent to his serious
claims he has repeatedly filed grievances which were ignored.
Plaintiff makes reference to his due process rights, but the
failure to respond to grievances is not a separate
constitutional violation against the named Defendants.
(Comp., p. 26); see Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950,
953 (7th Cir. 2011). In addition, Plaintiff claims
the failure to respond to his grievances is a “form of
retaliation, ” but he provides no further information
in support of this allegation. (Comp., p. 27). To state a
retaliation claim, a plaintiff must specifically allege:
“(1) he engaged in activity protected by the First
Amendment; (2) he suffered a deprivation that would likely
deter First Amendment activity in the future; and (3) the
First Amendment activity was at least a motivating factor in
the [d]efendants' decision to take the retaliatory
action.” Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 546
(7th Cir.2009). Plaintiff has provided no information to
support a retaliation claim. In addition, Plaintiff has not
identified any Defendants responsible for a due process or
Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. .
Plaintiff has no constitutional right to the appointment of
counsel in his case and the Court cannot require an attorney
to accept pro bono appointment in a civil case. The most the
Court can do is ask for volunteer counsel. See Jackson v.
County of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070, 1071 (7th
considering Plaintiff's motion, the Court must ask two
questions: “(1) has the indigent plaintiff made a
reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or been effectively
precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty
of the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate
it himself?” Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654
(7th Cir. 2007), citing Farmer v. Haas,
990 F.2d 319, 322 (7th Cir. 1993).
says he has written to three different attorneys to seek
representation. Even if the Court found this were a
reasonable attempt to find counsel, Plaintiff appears
competent to represent himself based on the current record.
Plaintiff's complaint clearly and coherently sets forth
the basis for his claims and the involvement of each
Defendant. Although Plaintiff's claim involves his
medical condition, he will be able to obtain medical records
during discovery. Plaintiff should also be able to testify
personally to the pain he experienced, his attempts to obtain
help, and the responses he received, which can be used to
show evidence of deliberate indifference. See Ledford v.
Sullivan, 105 F.3d 354, 358 (7th Cir. 1997)(expert
testimony not necessarily required to establish deliberate
indifference). The Court also notes Plaintiff has some
litigation experience. See Tate v. Gaetz, Case No.
13-1001 in the Southern District of Illinois, and Tate v.
Velasco, Case No. 03-3355 in the Northern District of
Defendants have been served, the Court will set this matter
for a telephone hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 16 to review the case and set a discovery schedule.
In addition, the Court will enter a Scheduling Order which
provides important information to assist a pro se Plaintiff.
Based on the record before the Court, Plaintiff's motion
is denied. 
THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1) Pursuant to its merit review of the complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds the Plaintiff alleges
the named Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights
when they were deliberately indifferent to his serious
medical condition. The claim is stated against the Defendants
in their individual capacities only. 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.
2) This 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.
3) The Court will attempt service on Defendants by mailing
each Defendant a waiver of service. Defendants have 60 days
from service 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
4) With 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 the Clerk.
5) 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 Order. In
general, an answer sets forth Defendants' positions. The
Court does not rule on the merits of those positions unless