United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
STEVEN D. LISLE, JR., Plaintiff,
MICHAEL MELVIN, ET AL. Defendants.
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).
alleges in his amended complaint that, on March 1, 2017,
unidentified members of the Orange Crush tactical team
twisted, yanked, and bent his wrist while placing him in
handcuffs despite Plaintiff's compliance with their
orders. Plaintiff alleges the Orange Crush members then
slammed him against a wall, smashed his face into the floor,
stripped searched him, digitally penetrated his anus, and
then marched him through the gallery with his genitals
exposed while he endured ridicule from other inmates.
Plaintiff alleges these officials then denied him medical
care for a broken knee and bloody nose. Based on these
allegations, Plaintiff states an Eighth Amendment claim for
excessive force, humiliating strip search, and deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need. Hudson v.
McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992); King v.
McCarty, 781 F.3d 889, 897 (7th Cir. 2015); Petties
v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722, 729-30 (7th Cir. 2016) (en
does not state a claim for relief as it relates to his
remaining allegations: a prison official's failure to
follow state rules and regulations does not create a
federally enforceable right, see Lennon v. City of
Carmel, 865 F.3d 503, 509 (7th Cir. 2017); Plaintiff
failed to identify a constitutionally protected activity that
motivated the alleged retaliatory actions, see DeWalt v.
Carter, 224 F.3d 607 (7th Cir. 2000); no plausible
inference arises that the John Howard Association, or its
employees, are state actors for purposes of section 1983, or
that they had contracted to perform a state function;
plaintiff does not allege how he was treated differently than
other inmates because of his race; plaintiff cannot sue the
wardens simply because they are in charge, see Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009); and, any remaining
allegations are unrelated to the claims for excessive force,
see Owens v. Godinez, 860 F.3d 434, 436 (7th Cir.
does not identify the members of the Orange Crush who used
excessive force against him. Therefore, Defendant Melvin, the
warden, will remain a defendant solely for purposes of
identifying the proper defendants. Donald v. Cook Cnty.
Sheriff's Dep't, 95 F.3d 548, 555-56 (7th Cir.
1996) (Court may name high level administrators as defendants
for purposes of identifying Doe defendants).
IS THERE FORE ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff's motion to amend complaint (#46) is
granted. Clerk is directed to docket the amended complaint
attached to plaintiff's motion.
2) 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 claims for excessive
force, humiliating strip search, and deliberate indifference
to a serious medical need against the John Doe Defendant.
Defendant Melvin shall remain a defendant solely for purposes
of identifying the Doe defendants. 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 15.
3) This 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.
4) The 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
5) With 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 the clerk.
6) The 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 considered.
7) This 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
of a motion to ...