United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
MICHAEL M. MIHM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
proceeding pro se, pursues a § 1983 action alleging
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs at the
Pontiac Correctional Center (“Pontiac”). The case
is before the Court for a merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. In reviewing the Complaint, the Court accepts
the factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in
Plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d
645, 649-51 (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. United States, 721 F.3d
418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(citation and internal quotation
marks omitted). While the pleading standard does not require
“detailed factual allegations”, it requires
“more than an unadorned,
Wilson v. Ryker, 451 Fed.Appx. 588, 589 (7th Cir.
2011) quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
asserts that he is seriously mentally ill (“SMI”)
with a history of at least one suicide attempt. On January 3,
2016, Plaintiff was moved to the Pontiac East House to cell
#920. At that time, Plaintiff asked that Defendant Meyer
called a crisis team member as voices were telling him to
kill himself. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Meyer did not
call for the crisis team and actually encouraged Plaintiff to
kill himself. The following day, Plaintiff told Defendant
Meyer that he would go on a hunger strike if not provided
treatment. Defendant allegedly told Plaintiff that he would
not document the hunger strike.
January 4, 2016, Plaintiff told Defendants Grove and Wilson
that he needed mental health intervention. That same day he
was seen by Ronald Benner, a Mental Health Professional
(“MHP”). Mr. Benner interviewed Plaintiff who
denied feeling suicidal at that time. He complained, however,
that “Dr. G” had discontinued his medication for
no reason. At this time, he had gone over a week without
medication and “voices” were
“messing” with him. Plaintiff does not, however,
assert a claim as to Dr. G. Plaintiff told MHP Benner that he
would not come off of the hunger strike until he was seen by
Dr. Seeler, the Administrative Director of Mental Health.
January 4, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., Plaintiff told Defendant Lt.
Boland that Defendant Meyers had refused to call the crisis
team or to record the hunger strike. It should be noted that
at this time, Plaintiff had refused only one meal, his
breakfast. Plaintiff claims, however, that another inmate
overheard Defendant Boland tell unidentified officers not to
record the hunger strike. Plaintiff was on the undocumented
hunger strike from January 4 through January 6, 2016.
states a colorable claim that Defendant Meyer was
deliberately indifferent in failing to call the crisis team
and failing to record the hunger strike. As he asserts that
Defendant Boland affirmatively told officers not to record
the hunger strike, the deliberate indifference claim against
him will also go forward. Plaintiff's only claims against
Defendants Grove and Wilson are that he told them he wanted
mental health intervention and he was seen that same day.
This fails to state a claim for deliberate indifference.
Defendants Grove and Wilson are DISMISSED.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
case shall proceed solely on the deliberate indifference
claims against Defendants Meyer and Boland, identified
herein. If Plaintiff wishes to assert a claim against Dr. G
is to file an amended complaint within 30 days. The amended
complaint must stand complete, on its own, identifying all
claims against all Defendants. Any claims not identified will
not be included in the case, except in the Court's
discretion upon motion by a party for good cause shown, or by
leave of court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15. Defendants Grove and Wilson are DISMISSED.
Plaintiff files motions for recruitment of pro bono counsel
  and . Plaintiff asserts that he attempted to
secure counsel on his ow, but the declination letters he
provides reference case numbers 14-8717 and 07-1298. As a
result, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not made a
reasonable attempt to secure counsel, here. Pruitt v.
Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007).   and  are
DENIED at this time. In the event that Plaintiff renews his
motion for appointment of counsel, he is to provide copies of
letters sent to, and received from, prospective counsel for
representation in this case. Plaintiff's motions for
status  is rendered moot. Plaintiff files , asserting
that one of his mental health care providers recorded the
wrong date on a progress note.
asks that the Court change the date on the record. The Court
does not have the authority to undertake such an action and
 is DENIED. Plaintiff files , requesting that the Court
send him copies of this case and three others. Plaintiff does
not disclose what he wants copied and Court will not consider
his request as to his other cases. Furthermore, it is
Plaintiff's responsibility is to keep his copies of
anything he files in this case.  is DENIED with leave to
renew, identifying those documents he wants copied.
Clerk is directed to send to each Defendant pursuant to this
District's internal procedures: 1) a Notice of Lawsuit
and Request for Waiver of Service; 2) a Waiver of Service; 3)
a copy of the Complaint; and 4) a copy of this Order.
4. If a
Defendant fails to sign and return a Waiver of Service to the
Clerk within 30 days after the Waiver is sent, the Court will
take appropriate steps to effect formal service on that
Defendant and will require that Defendant pay the full costs
of formal service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4(d)(2). If a Defendant no longer works at the address
provided by Plaintiff, the entity for which Defendant worked
at the time identified in the Complaint shall provide to the
Clerk Defendant's current work address, or, if not known,
Defendant's forwarding address. This information will be
used only for purposes of effecting service. Documentation of
forwarding addresses will be maintained only by the Clerk and
shall not be maintained in the public docket nor disclosed by
Defendants shall file an answer within the prescribed by
Local Rule. A Motion to Dismiss is not an answer. The answer
it to include all defenses appropriate under the Federal
Rules. The answer and subsequent pleadings are to address the
issues and claims identified in this Order.
Plaintiff shall serve upon any Defendant who has been served,
but who is not represented by counsel, a copy of every filing
submitted by Plaintiff for consideration by the Court, and
shall also file a certificate of service stating the date on
which the copy was mailed. Any paper received by a District
Judge or Magistrate Judge that has not been filed with ...