United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MICHAEL A. PAYNE II, Plaintiff,
DAVID W. HUNT, et al., Defendants.
MERIT REVIEW OPINION
MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
proceeds pro se from his incarceration in the Shawnee
Correctional Center regarding an alleged lack of medical and
mental health care at the Piatt County Jail. 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
alleges that he was denied his psychiatric medications
(Welbutron and Trazadone) during his detention in the Piatt
County Jail in 2107. The jail doctor allegedly tried to
substitute other medications that Plaintiff knew from prior
experience would worsen his psychiatric state. Additionally,
Plaintiff alleges that his prescription for Warfarin was
mismanaged, putting him at risk of internal bleeding and
clotting. Plaintiff was also allegedly denied mental health
constitutional violation arises if the medical professionals
were exercising their professional judgment within acceptable
bounds. Additionally, malpractice is not a constitutional
violation, and the nonmedical Defendants are generally
entitled to rely on the expertise of the medical
professionals. Plaintiff should also know that he cannot
recover compensatory damages unless he suffered a physical
injury, which he does not allege.
this is the notice pleading stage, and, at this point, the
Court cannot rule out a plausible constitutional claim for
deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical
and mental health needs. The case will proceed for service
per the standard procedures.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, the Court finds that Plaintiff states a
constitutional claim for deliberate indifference to
Plaintiff's serious medical and mental health needs
during his detention at the Piatt County Jail in 2017. This
case proceeds solely on the claims identified in this
paragraph. Any additional claims shall not be included in the
case, 2) 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. 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 ...