Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chavez v. Cunningham

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

August 29, 2019

JULIO CHAVEZ, #Y32297, Plaintiff,
v.
LORIE CUNNINGHAM, and DEE DEE BROOKHART, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Nancy J. Rosenstengel Chief U.S. District Judge.

         Plaintiff Julio Chavez, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), who is currently incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center (“Lawrence”), brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that he was attacked by another inmate resulting in extensive head injuries, including a broken nose. Because his broken nose has gone untreated, Plaintiff has developed several physical and mental health problems such as a mild brain injury, loss of hearing in his left ear, extreme pain behind his eyes, migraines, difficulty sleeping and breathing, dizziness, double vision, depression, memory loss, and anxiety.

         Following an initial screening of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Plaintiff was allowed to proceed on the following claim:

         Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against Cunningham for deliberate indifference to medical needs.

         Pursuant to the Initial Scheduling and Discovery Order, Plaintiff had until September 19, 2019, to file a motion for leave to amend the complaint to include any additional claims or parties. (Doc. 25, p. 3). On July 18, 2019, he filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 29). The Court denied the motion as attempting to add to his original complaint by interlineation. (Doc. 30). Plaintiff again filed another Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint on August 8, 2019, in which he brings claims against two additional Defendants: Sarah Stover and Dr. Ritz (Doc. 32). Defendants filed a Response to the motion arguing that the motion should be denied for failing to conform to Local Rule 15.1. They assert that the proposed Amended Complaint underlines only the names of the new proposed defendants, but fails to underline all added allegations. (Doc. 33, p. 2).

         The Court now considers Plaintiff's Motion for Service of Process at Government Expense (Doc. 31) and his Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 32).

         Amended Complaint

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave to amend should be freely given when justice so requires. Plaintiff's motion is timely and, while the Court acknowledges that Plaintiff's proposed amendment does not underline all the new material as required by Local Rule 15.1, the Court will waive this requirement in this instance. Nonetheless, the First Amended Complaint is still subject to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.[1] Accordingly, prior to granting leave to amend, the Court will screen the First Amended Complaint in accordance with this statute.

         In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff brings identical claims against Defendant Cunningham. He also adds claims of deliberate indifference regarding the treatment of his broken nose against Nurse Sarah Stover and Dr. Ritz. Plaintiff claims that Sarah Stover refused to put his nose back into place because he incurred the injury while fighting, leaving him in constant pain. He also alleges that Dr. Ritz denied his referral to see an Ear, Nose, and Throat Specialist and stated that Plaintiff's problem was a cosmetic issue that can be fixed when he is released.

         Therefore, the Court designates a new Count 1 as follows:

         Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against Cunningham, Stover, and Ritz for deliberate indifference to medical needs.

         For the reasons articulated in the original Merit Review Order (Doc. 3), Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Cunningham survive preliminary review. Plaintiff's allegations as to Nurse Sarah Stover and Dr. Ritz regarding the inadequate treatment of his injuries are also sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim. Accordingly, the new Count 1 as designated in this Order shall proceed.

         Motion for Service of Process at Government Expense

         Because Plaintiff has been granted pauper status (Doc. 16) and the Court is obligated to arrange service for incarcerated persons proceeding in forma pauperis, his Motion for Service of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.