United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
KENNADO K. TAYLOR, #131825, Plaintiff,
NURSE SARAH, PAM HARTMAN, TINA ROBER, SHERRI RIDER, TAMMY CRAIG, JOHN DOE, and DENNIS SCHROEKER, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL, CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Kennado K. Taylor, an apparent pretrial detainee currently
detained at Chester Mental Health Center
(“Chester”), brings this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 claiming imminent danger of serious
physical injury due to deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need. According to the Complaint, on December 8, 9,
and 10, 2019, he was denied treatment for his cold, which has
aggravated his asthma and resulted in asthma attacks. (Doc.
1). Taylor states that he was not treated in retaliation for
filing previous lawsuits. (Id. at p. 3). He also
claims that when he asked for his asthma medicine, he was
told that he had already been given a dose that day and would
be given another dose until that night. (Id.).
with the Complaint, Taylor filed a Motion for Leave to
Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (Doc.
2). Taylor indicates that he has filed forty-five previous
lawsuits, and a review of the Public Access to Court
Electronic Records (“PACER”) website
(www.pacer.gov) reveals that Taylor has had more than three
cases dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous,
malicious, or failed to state a claim. See Taylor v. Doe,
et al., No. 17-cv-2347 (N.D. Ill. dismissed June 2,
2017); Taylor v. Doe, et al., No. 17-cv-2348 (N.D.
Ill. dismissed June 2, 2017); Taylor v. Doe, et al.,
No. 17-cv-2349 (N.D. Ill. dismissed June 5, 2017); Taylor
v. Doe, et al., No. 17-cv- 5537 (N.D. Ill. dismissed
Sept. 22, 2017); Taylor v. Doe, et al., No.
17-cv-6001 (N.D. Ill. dismissed Sept. 22, 2017). Thus, he may
not proceed IFP unless he is in “imminent danger of
serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). As
discussed below, it is unclear whether Taylor satisfies this
standard, and so the Complaint will be dismissed, and he will
be granted leave to amend.
Forma Pauperis Motion
1915(g) prohibits a prisoner from bringing a civil action or
appealing a civil judgment IFP, “if the prisoner has,
on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained
in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of
the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it
is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent
danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). Because Taylor has accumulated five
“strikes” for purposes of Section 1915(g), he
cannot proceed IFP unless he is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
danger” within the meaning of Section 1915(g) requires
a “real and proximate” threat of serious physical
injury to a prisoner. Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d
328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Lewis v. Sullivan,
279 F.3d 526, 529 (7th Cir. 2002)). Courts “deny leave
to proceed IFP when a prisoner's claims of imminent
danger are conclusory or ridiculous.” Id. at
331 (citing Heimermann v. Litscher, 337 F.3d 781,
782 (7th Cir. 2003)). Additionally, “[a]llegations of
past harm do not suffice” to show imminent danger;
rather, “the harm must be imminent or occurring at the
time the complaint is filed, ” and when prisoners
“allege only a past injury that has not recurred,
courts deny them leave to proceed [as a pauper].”
Id. at 330 (citing Abdul-Wadood v. Nathan,
91 F.3d 1023 (7th Cir. 1996)).
it is not clear whether the allegations pertaining to
Defendants' failure to treat Taylor's cold and asthma
meet the Seventh Circuit's standard for imminent danger.
Taylor claims that he was denied treatment on three days in
December, and that he was denied asthma medication because he
was already administered a dose that day. These allegations
would suggest that he is receiving treatment and that the
harm is not reoccurring. He also states, however, that he is
still sick and is having asthma attacks, and so is not clear
whether he is still being denied medical treatment.
is granted leave to file an amended complaint so that he can
provide more factual detail regarding his current treatment.
When repleading these claims in the First Amended Complaint,
Taylor should identify who violated his constitutional rights
by name, if known. He should explain whether he is receiving
medical treatment for his cold and asthma, and include a
description of how his rights were violated and continue to
be violated by each defendant.
IS HEREBY ORDERED that, for the reasons state, the
Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without
prejudice. The Court defers ruling on the Motion for Leave to
Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) until after the
deadline for Taylor to file the First Amended Complaint.
is GRANTED leave to file a “First
Amended Complaint” on or before January 13,
2020. Should Taylor fail to file a First Amended
Complaint within the allotted time or consistent with the
instructions set forth in this Order, the entire case shall
be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with a
court order and/or for failure to prosecute his claims.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d
1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Johnson v. Kamminga, 34 F.3d
466 (7th Cir. 1994); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In the
alternative, Taylor may also avoid dismissal by paying the
full filing fee of $400.00 by January 13,
2020, and at which point the Court would screen the
original Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
strongly recommended that Taylor use the civil rights
complaint form designed for use in this District. He should
label the form, “First Amended Complaint, ” and
he should use the case number for this action (No.
19-cv-01361-NJR). To enable Taylor to comply with this Order,
the CLERK is DIRECTED to
mail Taylor a blank civil rights complaint form.
amended complaint generally supersedes and replaces the
original complaint, rendering the original complaint void.
See Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am.,
354 F.3d 632, 638 n. 1 (7th Cir. 2004). The First Amended
Complaint must stand on its own without reference to any
previous pleading. Taylor must re-file any exhibits he wishes
the Court to consider. The First Amended Complaint is also
subject to review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Taylor is ADVISED that he is under a
continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of Court and each
opposing party informed of any change in his address; the
Court will not independently investigate his whereabouts.
This shall be done in writing and not later than 7
days after a transfer or other change in address
occurs. Failure to comply with this order will cause a delay
in the transmission of ...