Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Langenfeld v. Eisenhower

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois

May 14, 2018

MATTHEW LANGENFELD, Plaintiff,
v.
EISENHOWER, et al. Defendants.

          MERIT REVIEW ORDER

          HAROLD A. BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This 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. § 1915A.

         In 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).

         Plaintiff 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 treatment.

         Plaintiff 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 the jail.

         IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

         2. 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. 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. 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 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 more detail.

         8. The 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.

         10. The clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

         12. The clerk is directed to attempt service on Defendants Barrett, Heartshorn, Thorn, and Shelley pursuant to the standard procedures.

Pruitt v. ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.