United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
E. SHADID, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
is civilly detained in the Rushville Treatment and Detention
Center pursuant to the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons
Commitment Act, 725 ILCS 207/1, et seq. and seeks
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
"privilege to proceed without posting security for costs
and fees is reserved to the many truly impoverished litigants
who, within the District Court's sound discretion, would
remain without legal remedy if such privilege were not
afforded to them." Brewster v. North Am. Van Lines,
Inc., 461 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 1972). In addition, a
court must dismiss cases proceeding IFP "at any
time" if the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim, even if part of the filing fee has been paid.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)(2). Accordingly, this Court grants
leave to proceed IFP only if the complaint states a federal
reviewing the complaint, the Court accepts the factual
allegations as true, liberally construing them in
Plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d
645, 649 (7thCir. 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).
says Rushville Security Therapy Aid (STA) Rosemary Hayes
escorted Plaintiff to the Cook County Courthouse on September
12, 2017. During a court hearing, Plaintiff accused Rushville
staff members of lying on incident reports and providing
inaccurate accounts of events at the facility. Afterwards,
Defendant Hayes told Plaintiff he was always complaining
about something. Plaintiff claims the Defendant then
intentionally applied black-box restraints “very, very,
extremely, tight, so much so that I could hardly
breathe and I couldn't maneuver or move my hands/arms at
all.” (Comp., p. 6). Defendant Hayes applied the waist
chain in a similar fashion.
Plaintiff complained the restraints were tight and painful,
Defendant Hayes said it was “too bad” and he
could complain to the Judge next time. (Comp., p. 6).
Plaintiff was then forced to ride in the painful restraints
for approximately five hours of “pain, agony, and
torture.” (Comp., p. 6).
also alleges Defendant Hayes knew Plaintiff suffers with a
painful wrist condition which was aggravated by the
restraints. Plaintiff says he has shown the Defendant
“medical papers” in the past, but Plaintiff had
not identified his specific medical condition. (Comp, p. 6).
has adequately alleged Defendant Hayes used excessive force
in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. In addition,
Plaintiff has alleged Defendant Hayes retaliated against him
for his complaints about Rushville staff during the Court
hearing. While Plaintiff says he is suing Defendant Hayes in
her official and individual capacities, the complaint does
not articulate an official capacity claim. See Monell v.
Department of Social Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 692 (1978).
1. Plaintiff's petition to proceed in forma pauperis is
granted. . Pursuant to a review of the Complaint, the
Court finds that Plaintiff alleges Defendant Hayes used
excessive force and retaliated against Plaintiff when she
intentionally applied restraints in a painful manner on
September 12, 2017 and forced Plaintiff to stay in the
restraints for approximately five hours. The claim is stated
against the Defendant in her individual capacity only. 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 Procedure
2. This case is now in the process of service. Plaintiff is
advised to wait until counsel has appeared for Defendants
before filing any motions, in order to give 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. Plaintiff need not submit
any evidence to the Court at this time, unless otherwise
directed by the Court.
3. The Court will attempt service on Defendants by sending
each Defendant a waiver of service. Defendants have 60 days
from the date the waiver of service is sent to file an
Answer. If Defendants have not filed Answers or appeared
through counsel within 90 days of the entry of this order,
Plaintiff may file a motion requesting the status of service.
After counsel has appeared for Defendants, the Court will
enter a scheduling order setting deadlines for discovery and
4. With respect to a Defendant who no longer works at the
address provided by 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.
5. Defendants shall file an answer within 60 days of the day
the waiver of service 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