United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
A. BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
case is before the court for a merit review of the
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.
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).
is presently detained in the Vermilion County Jail. Plaintiff
alleges that he was exposed to an inmate infected with
methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and that
Defendants Barrett (a captain), Heartshorn (Head Sheriff),
Thorn (correctional officer), and Shelley (nurse) either
refused or did not respond to his request to be moved to a
different area of the jail. Plaintiff alleges that, as a
result, he became infected with MRSA. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant Shelley then failed to provide proper medical
states a Fourteenth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim
for the alleged exposure to a MRSA-infected detainee against
Defendants Barrett, Heartshorn, and Thorn, and a Fourteenth
Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need against Defendant Shelley. See Budd v.
Motley, 711 F.3d 840, 842 (7th Cir. 2013); Petties
v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722, 729-30 (7th Cir. 2016) (en
banc). Defendant Eisenhower, however, will be dismissed as no
plausible inference arises that he, in his capacity as mayor,
was personally responsible for the cell block assignments at
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.
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
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 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
plaintiff shall immediately notify the court, in writing, of
any change in his mailing address and telephone number. The
plaintiff's failure to notify the court of a change in
mailing address or phone number will result in dismissal of
this lawsuit, with prejudice.
clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified protective
order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and
clerk is directed to attempt service on Defendants Barrett,
Heartshorn, Thorn, and Shelley pursuant to the standard
Pruitt v. ...