United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
Reona J. Daly, United States Magistrate Judge.
matter is before the Court on the Motion for Leave to File an
Amended Complaint (Doc. 30) filed by Plaintiff. Defendants
failed to timely file a response.
Allory Smith, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) currently housed at Menard
Correctional Center (“Menard”), brings this
pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff alleges that prison officials at both Menard and
Pontiac Correctional Center (“Pontiac”) were
responsible for denying him medication and treatment for his
serious mental illness while he was housed at Menard in 2016.
Following threshold review, Plaintiff proceeds on the
Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against
Nurses McGee, Gracin, Nayper, Thompson, and Shrip
(“Menard Nurses”) for denying or delaying
Plaintiff's access to medication and/or mental health
treatment at Menard between June 29 and July 9, 2016.
Count 2: Eighth Amendment claim against
Warden Butler for disregarding or denying Plaintiff's
grievances regarding the denial of psychotropic medication
and/or mental health treatment between June 29 and July 9,
seeks leave to amend the complaint to bring back the
following claims and Defendants dismissed in the screening
order: Defendant Warden Melvin (Count 2), Defendant Drilling
(Count 3) and Defendant Wexford (Count 4). The screening
order set forth Counts 3 and 4 as follows:
Count 3: Eighth Amendment claim against
Nurse Drilling for maintaining inaccurate medical records for
Plaintiff at Pontiac that resulted in the denial or delay in
medication and/or mental health treatment at Menard between
June 29 and July 9, 2016.
Count 4: Eighth Amendment claim against
Wexford for implementing unspecified policies that resulted
in the denial or delay in Plaintiff's medication and/or
mental health treatment at Menard in 2016.
screening order held that Plaintiff's allegations in the
original Complaint did not support claims against Warden
Melvin (Count 2), Nurse Drilling (Count 3), or Wexford (Count
4) because the allegations were threadbare, vague, and/or
proposed amended complaint alleges Plaintiff was transferred
from Pontiac (“parent institution”) to Menard for
a court writ. Plaintiff alleges Warden Melvin violated his
constitutional rights because the “writ” for his
transfer was improperly prepared. Plaintiff cites IDOC
Administrative Directives and alleges that, as Warden, Melvin
was responsible for ensuring his/her health care unit staff
followed the administrative directives regarding transferring
medical records between institutions. In conclusory fashion,
Plaintiff asserts that his transfer materials did not
properly convey the seriousness of his mental health needs
and, therefore, Warden Melvin acted with deliberate
indifference. Plaintiff fails to set forth factual
allegations of Melvin's personal involvement in the
preparation of his transfer materials. It is well settled law
that respondeat superior is not a viable claim under
proposed amended complaint also adds supplemental allegations
against Defendants Drilling and Wexford. Plaintiff alleges
Drilling maintained an inaccurate medical record at Pontiac
because she documented that he received his medication at
Pontiac on three dates in which he was housed at Menard.
Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to establish a
claim that Drilling was responsible for the denial or delay
of mental health treatment during his stay at Menard.
Additionally, Plaintiff states Wexford maintained
“procedures and policies” that violated his
constitutional rights. Plaintiff fails to identify which of
Wexford's policies caused the deprivation of his rights.
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) states, “a party may
amend the party's pleading only by leave of court or by
written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be
freely given when justice so requires.” “Reasons
for finding that leave should not be granted include undue
delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the
movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by
virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of
amendment.” Airborne Beepers & Video, Inc. v.
AT & T Mobility LLC, 499 F.3d 663, 666 (7th Cir.
Scheduling Order (Doc. 20) entered in this case set a
deadline of March 28, 2019, for motions for leave to amend to
be filed. Plaintiff filed his motion after the deadline.
Plaintiff argues his motion was delayed because he was not
housed in the same location with his “jail house
lawyer.” In addition to the late filing of
Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend, the claims set
forth in the proposed amended complaint are futile.
Plaintiff's proposed complaint fails to state a claim
against Defendant Melvin and fails to cure the deficiencies
in Counts 3 and 4 as stated in the screening order. The Court