United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. Rosenstengel Chief U.S. District Judge.
Benzanta Vanzant, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois
Department of Corrections currently incarcerated at Centralia
Correctional Center (“Centralia”), brings this
action for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Following screening of the
Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Plaintiff was allowed
to proceed with a single Eighth Amendment medical deliberate
indifference claim against Defendant Santos. (Doc. 10). All
other claims were dismissed without prejudice.
April 19, 2019,  two days after Defendant Santos filed his
Answer (Doc. 17), Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File
an Amended Complaint (Doc. 19) and a proposed Amended
Complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) states
that “[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter
of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the
pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required,
21 days after service of a responsive pleading[.]”
Plaintiff's motion is timely and complies with Rule
15(a)(1). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to
File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 19) will be granted, and the
Clerk will be directed to file the First Amended Complaint.
Of course, the First Amended Complaint is still subject to
review pursuant to Section 1915A.
Section 1915A, the Court is required to screen prisoner
complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). Any portion of a complaint that is legally
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or requests money damages from a
defendant who by law is immune from such relief must be
dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
First Amended Complaint
allegations in the First Amended Complaint are substantially
the same as those summarized in the Court's initial Merit
Review Order (Doc. 10), and the details will not be recounted
here. Put simply, Plaintiff's claims all relate to
Defendants' refusal to renew his medications that treat
his chronic medical conditions. He alleges claims under
federal and state law. The Court will identify and discuss
any additional allegations as necessary to address
on the allegations of the First Amended Complaint, the Court
finds it convenient to designate the following eleven counts:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants for
deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's chronic medical
conditions by failing to renew Plaintiff's medications
for those conditions.
Count 2: Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment claim against
Defendants for failing to renew Plaintiff's medications
for his chronic medical conditions.
Count 3: Fourteenth Amendment claim against Stock for
mishandling Plaintiff's grievance.
Count 4: Defendants failed to perform their official
administrative duty to ensure medication was issued timely
when requested by Plaintiff.
Count 5: American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and
Veterans' Disability Act claim against Defendants for
failing to renew Plaintiff's medications for his chronic
medical conditions and failing to perform their duty to
ensure his medication was issued timely when requested by
Count 6: State law gross negligence claim against Defendants.
Count 7: State law assault, battery, and torture claims
Count 8: Defendants conspired to violate Plaintiff's
constitutional rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241
and § 242.
Count 9: Illinois constitutional law claim against Defendants
for denying and/or failing to renew Plaintiff's
medications for his chronic medical conditions and failing to
perform their duty to ensure his medication was issued timely
when requested by him.
Count 10: Failure to comply with 730 ILCS 5/3-6-2(e) and (f).
Count 11: Intentional infliction of emotional distress claim
parties and the Court will use these designations in all
future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a
judicial officer of this Court. The designations do not
constitute an opinion regarding their merit. Any
other intended claim that has not been recognized by the
Court isconsidered ...