United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
A. BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff, proceeding pro se, currently residing at
Wayside Cross Ministries, was granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. The case is now before the court for a
merit review of plaintiff's claims. 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 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). The court
has reviewed the complaint and has also held a merit review
hearing in order to give the plaintiff a chance to personally
explain his claims to the court.
filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
that while he was incarcerated at Illinois River Correctional
Center, Defendants Greby, Ranken, and Osmundson, all doctors,
and Defendant Beard, a nurse, delayed or denied his requests
for cortisone injections in his knees, surgery, and
examination by an outside specialist for budgetary reasons.
As a result, Plaintiff alleges he was forced to endure
unnecessary pain for over eight (8) years.
states a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need against Defendants Greby, Ranken, Osmundson, and
Beard. Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722, 729-30 (7th
Cir. 2016) (en banc). Plaintiff, however, makes no
allegations against Defendant Hammer, the warden, and he
cannot sue this defendant just because he was in charge or
oversaw the prison operations. See Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (no vicarious liability
under § 1983);Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987, 991
(7th Cir. 1996) (“Section 1983 creates a cause of
action based on personal liability and predicated upon fault;
thus, liability does not attach unless the individual
defendant caused or participated in a constitutional
State of Illinois should also be dismissed as it is not a
person amenable to suit. See Will v. Michigan Dep't
of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989)
(“[N]either a State[, ] nor its officials acting in
their official capacities are “persons” under
the applicable statute of limitations may bar plaintiff's
claims against certain defendants, but that determination
should be made upon a more developed record. See Sidney
Hillman Health Ctr. of Rochester v. Abbott Labs., Inc.,
782 F.3d 922, 928 (7th Cir. 2015).
Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, the court finds that the plaintiff states an
Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a
serious mental health need against Defendants Greby, Ranken,
Osmundson, and Beard. 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.
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 ...