United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
JERRY L. MITCHELL, Plaintiff,
ROB JEFFREYS, et al.,, Defendants.
MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
A. BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff, proceeding pro se, and currently an
inmate within the Illinois Department of Corrections at the
Illinois River Correctional Center (“Illinois
River”), was granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. The case is now before the Court for a merit
review of the plaintiff's claims contained within his
complaint. The Court is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to
“screen” the plaintiff's 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 filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
“[I]n order to bring a claim under this section, the
plaintiff must show two elements: (1) the party against whom
the claim is brought qualifies as a ‘person acting
under the color of state law'; and (2) the conduct
alleged amounted to a deprivation of rights, privileges, or
immunities under the Constitution or the laws of the United
States.” Tom Beu Xiong v. Fischer, 787 F.3d
389, 397 (7th Cir. 2015).
plaintiff alleges that the named defendants violated his
Constitutional rights, in that, they failed or refused to
provide him with information regarding the potential
side-effects and risks for the experimental prescription
drugs that he is taking. The plaintiff contends that he has
experienced ill side-effects from taking the drugs, but his
condition is being ignored.
to the plaintiff's assertion, there is no Constitutional
right to receive information regarding the potential risks
and side-effects from prescription medication. In addition,
simply denying a grievance is not a sufficient basis upon
which to hold a prison official liable under § 1983.
Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th
Cir. 2011); Wilkins v. Illinois Dep't of
Corrections, 2009 WL 1904414, * 9 (S.D. Ill. July 1,
2009); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609
(7th Cir. 2007). Therefore, the plaintiff's
Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted against Defendants Jeffreys, Hammers, Howerter, and
the plaintiff's complaint does state a claim upon which
relief can be granted as to Defendant Dr. Osmundson.
According to the plaintiff, he informed Dr. Osmundson of the
ill side-effects that he was experiencing as a result of
taking the medication prescribed to him by Dr. Osmundson, but
Dr. Osmundson ignored his physical ailments that he sustained
as a result of taking the medication and instructed the
plaintiff to continue to take the medication. If the
plaintiff's allegations are true, Dr. Osmundson's
inaction could constitute deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need in violation the plaintiff's Eighth
Amendment rights, and the Court will allow the plaintiff to
proceed on that claim.
Pursuant to its merit review of the plaintiff's Complaint
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds that the
plaintiff's Complaint states an Eighth Amendment
deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Dr.
Osmundson. 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.
Clerk of the Court is directed to effect service of process
on Dr. Osmundson pursuant to the Court's standard
Clerk of the Court is further directed to dismiss all other
named Defendants for failure to state a claim against them
upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A;
Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6).
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 sixty (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 ninety (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
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 ...