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 an
inmate within the Illinois Department of Corrections at the
Logan Correctional Center (“Logan”), was granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court
conducted a merit review of the plaintiff's original
complaint and determined that her complaint failed to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A. Specifically, the Court held that the complaint failed
to state a claim because the plaintiff had failed to name a
person as a defendant who is amenable to a § 1983 suit
and because the plaintiff had not alleged any conduct that
amounted to a deprivation of rights, privileges, or
immunities under the Constitution or the laws of the United
the Court gave the plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint. The plaintiff's proposed amended complaint is
now before the Court for a merit review.
amended complaint, the plaintiff attempts to comply with the
Court's Merit Review Order by identifying three people as
defendants: (1) B. Calhoun (an assistant warden at Logan);
(2) Lisa Johnson (the health care unit administrator at
Logan); and (3) Ja'Cole Hinckle (the medical director at
Logan). The plaintiff contends that she suffers from an eye
condition that significantly impairs her vision. As a result
of her impaired vision, the plaintiff alleges that a doctor
has given her a prescription for rewetting drops for her eyes
and has given her a prescription that allows her to use a key
for her lock box. Despite having this prescription from a
medical provider, the plaintiff contends that the defendants
will not provide her with a key lock or with rewetting drops.
the plaintiff does not specifically allege what each
defendant did or did not do that allegedly deprived her of
her Constitutional rights, the Court is cognizant that
pro se complaints are to be construed liberally.
Therefore, the Court will allow this case to proceed on a
deliberate indifference claim, i.e., that defendants
allegedly interfered with or deprived the plaintiff of the
prescription provided to her by a doctor.
plaintiff should understand that, in order to be held liable
under § 1983, a defendant must have been personally
involved in the alleged Constitutional deprivation. If the
named defendant(s) was not personally involved, then the
plaintiff's claim against that defendant(s) could be
subject to summary dismissal. At this point, however, the
Court will allow the plaintiff's deliberate indifference
claim to proceed.
plaintiff's motion for leave to file amended complaint
 is granted.
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 deliberate indifference claim
against Defendants B. Calhoun, Lisa Johnson, and Ja'Cole
Hinckle. 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 add B. Calhoun, Lisa
Johnson, and Ja'Cole Hinckle as party Defendants and to
effect service of process upon them at the Logan Correctional
Center pursuant to the Court's standard procedures.
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 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.
Court will attempt service on the defendants by mailing the
defendants a waiver of service. The defendants have sixty
(60) days from the date the waiver is sent to file an answer.
If the defendants have 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 defendants have 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 ...