United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
A. BAKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff, proceeding pro se, a civil detainee at the
Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility
(“Rushville”) is requesting leave to proceed
under a reduced payment procedure for indigent plaintiffs who
are institutionalized but are not prisoners as defined in 28
U.S.C. Section 1915(h).
“privilege to proceed without posting security for
costs and fees is reserved to the many truly impoverished
litigants who, within the District Court's sound
discretion, would remain without legal remedy if such
privilege were not afforded to them.” Brewster v.
North Am. Van Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir.
1972). Additionally, a court must dismiss cases proceeding
in forma pauperis “at any time” if the
action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim,
even if part of the filing fee has been paid. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(d)(2). Accordingly, this court grants leave to
proceed in forma pauperis only if the complaint
states a federal action.
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.
alleges that he was charged with three rules violations in
December 2018. According to documents Plaintiff attached to
his complaint, Plaintiff was served with notice on December
14, 2018, that hearings for all three alleged infractions
would occur on December 17, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that the
Behavioral Committee issued a warning for an offense
committed on December 11, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that he
later received notice two days later that the warning had
been changed to include a 6-month restriction on all
recreation activities. Plaintiff alleges that the recreation
activities are vital to his treatment at the facility.
alleges he filed a grievance regarding the modification of
his punishment shortly thereafter. Plaintiff alleges that on
January 9, 2019, Defendants Lodge and Lucas moved him to a
new cell and allowed another inmate to move Plaintiff's
property. Plaintiff alleges this was done in retaliation for
filing the grievance. Plaintiff alleges he now resides in a
new cell, that he has not yet received his property, and that
he was told that the other resident who moved his belonging
dropped a Walkman and “took other things.”
Plaintiff states a claim for retaliation against Defendants
Lodge and Lucas for the alleged cell move. Bridges v.
Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 553 (7th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff
also states a claim for inadequate mental health treatment
against Defendants Jumper, Lodge, and Lucas based upon the
alleged restriction on recreational activities that are vital
to his rehabilitation. Hughes v. Farris, 837 F.3d
807, 808 (7th Cir. 2016). Plaintiff does not state a
procedural due process claim as the recreation activities
restriction is not a deprivation sufficient to trigger due
process concerns. Miller v. Dobier, 634 F.3d 412,
415-16 (7th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff does not make any
allegations against Defendants Scott, Simpson, Steffen, or
Unknown Staff. Therefore, these defendants will be dismissed.
is therefore ordered:
Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, the court finds that the plaintiff states a
claim for retaliation against Defendants Lodge and Lucas, and
a claim for inadequate mental health treatment against
Defendants Jumper, Lodge, and Lucas. 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 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
Counsel for the defendants is hereby granted leave to depose
the plaintiff at his place of confinement. Counsel for the