United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
JARAD W. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
JOHN R. BALDWIN, et al., Defendants.
MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
A. BAKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff, proceeding pro se, and currently being
held at the Joliet Treatment Center, was granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. The plaintiff filed his
original complaint  on February 14, 2019, and the Court
gave him leave to file an amended complaint  on April 16,
2019, after determining, during a merit review, that his
Original Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted.
case is now before the court for a merit review of the
plaintiff's claims contained within his proposed amended
complaint. The Court is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to
“screen” the plaintiff's amended 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.
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 currently confined at the Joliet Treatment
Center, but his allegations concern events that occurred
while he was housed at the Pontiac Correctional Center. The
plaintiff alleges in his proposed amended complaint that he
was the subject of excessive force in violation of his
Constitutional rights. In his Original Complaint, the
plaintiff failed to identify a proper defendant who allegedly
violated his Constitutional rights. In his proposed amended
complaint, the plaintiff lists a number of individuals as
defendants in the caption of his proposed amended complaint,
but he only identifies one person in the body of his proposed
amended complaint who (allegedly) took any actions that
violated his rights: Andy Smith. According to his
allegations, Defendant Smith pushed him while he was
restrained which caused injury to the plaintiff.
upon these allegations, the Court will allow this case to
proceed on an excessive force claim against Defendant Smith.
The plaintiff's proposed amended complaint contains no
factual allegations against any of the other listed
defendants, and therefore, they are all dismissed.
Court notes that there are potential problems with this case.
First, the plaintiff alleges in one part of his
complaint that Defendant Smith's assault occurred on
February 28, 2016. In another part of his complaint, the
plaintiff alleges that the assault occurred on January 4,
2017. Under either allegation, this case be barred by the
applicable statute of limitations period, and Defendants
should consider filing a motion to dismiss or a summary
judgment motion on that issue depending upon when and if the
ARB ever issued a final determination on any relevant
grievance submitted by the plaintiff.
the plaintiff alleges that his grievance date was February
28, 2018. Although he does not allege when he received a
final determination on his grievance, it may be that the
plaintiff failed to exhaust properly his administrative
remedies based upon the timing of the filing of this
complaint vis-à-vis the timing of the filing
and resolution of any relevant grievance. This issue too may
form the basis for a motion to dismiss or for a
sooner-rather-than-later motion for summary judgment.
being said, the Court will leave that determination to
Defendant Smith because, for now, the plaintiff's
proposed amended complaint states a claim against Smith upon
which relief can be granted for using excessive or
unconstitutional force against him.
Pursuant to its merit review of the Amended Complaint 
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds that the
plaintiff states an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim
against Defendant Andy Smith. Any additional claims shall not
be included in the case except at the Court's discretion
and on a 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 defendant
before filing any motions, in order to give the defendant
notice and an opportunity to respond to those motions.
Motions filed before defendant's 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 defendant by mailing the
defendant a waiver of service. The defendant has 60 days from
the date the waiver is sent to file an answer. If the
defendant has not filed an answer 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
defendant has 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 ...