United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
A. BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
plaintiff, proceeding pro se, and currently
incarcerated at Pickneyville Correctional Center, was granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The case is now
before the court for a merit review of plaintiff's
claims. 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).
Court dismissed Plaintiff's original complaint and
granted him leave to amend. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed
several motions and documents with the Court that appear to
be an attempt to sue numerous officials at Pickneyville. In
his first amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he
suffers from hearing loss and “bodily pain” that
he believes are symptoms of dementia. Plaintiff alleges that
M.D. Myers and C. Brown have provided inadequate treatment
for these conditions and that they have not adequately tested
him for dementia. (Doc. 35 at 5-9). Based on these
allegations, Plaintiff states a claim for deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need against M.D. Myers and
C. Brown. Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722, 729-30
(7th Cir. 2016) (en banc).
also alleges generally that he has been retaliated against,
that he has had trouble using the grievance process, and that
his mail has been opened and copied. Id. Plaintiff
does not identify any specific prison officials responsible
for these incidents, and, therefore, these allegations will
be dismissed without prejudice to amendment.
also filed several motions that appear to be an attempt to
add claims to this lawsuit. (Docs. 34, 36, 37). If Plaintiff
desires to amend his complaint, he must file a proposed
amended complaint that lists all claims against all
defendants he wants to sue. The Court does not accept partial
complaints or piecemeal amendments. Plaintiff's motions
are denied without prejudice.
Plaintiff filed two motions that seek injunctive relief.
(Docs. 38, 41). Plaintiff alleges that the medical services
at Pickneyville are inadequate, and he seeks an order
directing prison officials to send him to an outside facility
or specialist to diagnose him with dementia, and to treat his
knees and other pain. As explained in the Court's
previous order, the Court cannot order injunctive relief
before defendants have been served or without a showing as to
why defendants should not be served. Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a).
Plaintiff has not made the latter showing. Further, Plaintiff
has not described the medical treatment he has received for
these conditions. At best, Plaintiff has presented his
opinion that the diagnostic testing he has received is
outdated and otherwise inadequate. This is not sufficient to
show a reasonable likelihood of success of the merits.
See McDonald v. Hardy, 821 F.3d 882, 888 (7th Cir.
2016) (claims of negligence, medical malpractice, or
disagreement with a prescribed course of treatment are not
sufficient to show deliberate indifference); Foodcomm
Int'l v Barry, 328 F.3d 300, 303 (7th Cir. 2003) (a
movant seeking injunctive relief must show, among other
things, a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits).
Plaintiff's motions are denied.
1. Plaintiff's Motion  is granted to the extent that
Plaintiff seeks leave to file an amended complaint and denied
as to any other relief requested. Clerk is directed to docket
the amended complaint,  at 5-9, attached to that order.
2. Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, the court finds that the plaintiff
states an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference
to a serious medical need against M.D. Myers and C. Brown.
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
3. 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. The 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
5. 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. The 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 ...