United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
E. SHADID, JAMES 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, has identified one Defendant in his
complaint: Henry Hill Correctional Center. Plaintiff says on
July 21, 2016, his cellmate viciously attacked him. The
inmate used an object to repeatedly strike Plaintiff in the
ears, eyes and head. The inmate then flushed the object down
the toilet. Plaintiff claims he never struck his cell mate
during the assault.
did not immediately report the incident, but when he went to
the Health Care Unit for a scheduled appointment, Nurse Casey
asked him what happened. Plaintiff eventually told the nurse
about the attack and she reported the assault to Officer
Brian Cannon. Plaintiff then repeated the details of the
assault to Officer Cannon and Major Kris Badge. The officers
took pictures of Plaintiff's injuries including a three
inch cut on his head.
officers then went to Plaintiff's cell to talk to his
cellmate, but returned with a cup of pills. They asked
Plaintiff what was in the cup and Plaintiff stated it was 25
blood pressure bills that had been given to him in a blister
pack. Plaintiff received a disciplinary ticket based on
having drugs or drug paraphernalia in his cell. Plaintiff
says he was placed in segregation on investigative status for
eight days. Plaintiff also complains he was moved repeatedly
throughout the institution in just one month's time.
then complains about the medical care he received after the
assault stating he “didn't think the tools were
sterile enough” and they did not send him to an outside
hospital. (Comp., p. 6). However, Plaintiff also admits he
was sent to an eye specialist in Peoria, Illinois and
mentions speaking with a neurologist. (Comp, p. 6, 7).
Plaintiff now has permanent left eye damage and is concerned
about his ears.
unclear what claims Plaintiff intended to allege in his
complaint. Plaintiff admits he was treated as soon as he
reported his injuries and he did see outside specialists. If
Plaintiff intended to allege the delay in sending him to an
outside specialist violated his constitutional rights, he
must provide more information. For instance, who provided the
initial treatment? Did Plaintiff need additional care? Which
doctor approved the outside consultation? How long did
Plaintiff wait to see the specialist? In addition,
“[a]n inmate who claims that a delay in medical
treatment rose to a constitutional violation must place
verifying medical evidence in the record to establish the
detrimental effect of delay in medical treatment to
succeed.” Langston v Peters, 100 F.3d 1235,
1240 (7th Cir. 1996).
it is not clear if Plaintiff was intending to state a
separate claim based on the disciplinary ticket. Again,
Plaintiff must provide more information. Was he found guilty
of the ticket? If so, what discipline did he receive? Was
Plaintiff in disciplinary segregation based on the attack or
Plaintiff cannot sue Hill Correctional Center pursuant to 42
U.S.C. §1983. Instead, Plaintiff must identify the
specific individuals who were involved in his allegations.
See Wilson v. Warren Cty., Illinois, 2016 WL
3878215, at *3 (7th Cir. 2016).
complaint is therefore dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. If Plaintiff believes he
can clarify his claims and allege a constitutional violation,
he may file an amended complaint within 21 days providing the
information noted in this order.
has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. 
Plaintiff has no constitutional right to the appointment of
counsel. In addition, 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
Cir. 1992). In 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).
Plaintiff has not demonstrated any attempt to find counsel on
his own such as a copy of any letters sent or received or a
list of attorneys contacted. Therefore, Plaintiff's
motion is denied with leave to renew. 
THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1) Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28
2) If Plaintiff believes he can state a constitutional
violation, he may file an amended complaint in compliance
with this order within 21 days or on or before December 8,
2017. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by the
deadline, his case will be dismissed and ...