Chambers v. Doe et al
Filing
9
MERIT REVIEW OPINION - Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 12/11/2015. Rule 16 Deadline 2/9/2016. See written Order. The clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The clerk is directed to terminate Warden Pfister as a defendant. The clerk is directed to attempt service on the remaining defendants pursuant to the standard procedures. (LN, ilcd)
E-FILED
Friday, 11 December, 2015 03:51:55 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JONATHAN CHAMBERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JANE DOE, et al.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
15-1384
MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, and currently incarcerated in the Western Illinois
Correctional Center, was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The case is now before the
court for a merit review of the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff was granted leave to amend his
complaint. The court is now required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to “screen” the plaintiff’s amended
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.
In reviewing the amended 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). The court has reviewed the amended complaint and
has also held a merit review hearing in order to give the plaintiff a chance to personally explain
his claims to the court.
The plaintiff filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that while being
housed at the Pontiac Correctional Center, he saw a physician for a herpes outbreak and was told
he would be given medication. Eighteen days later, he was transferred to Western and still had
not received the medication.
The plaintiff states a valid claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need
against the Jane Doe physician and Wexford Health Sources, Inc., and the case will proceed
accordingly against those two defendants. See Gonzalez v. Feinerman, 663 F.3d 311, 315 (2011)
(“Delay in treating a condition that is painful even if not life-threatening may well constitute
deliberate indifference….”(citations omitted)).
The plaintiff names Warden Pfister as a defendant based on his supervisory role at
Pontiac. A defendant cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless a plaintiff can
demonstrate the defendant caused or participated in the alleged constitutional violation. McBride
v. Soos, 679 F.2d 1223, 1227 (7th Cir. 1982). The mere fact that a defendant was a supervisor is
insufficient to establish liability because the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to
actions filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pacelli v. DeVito, 972 F.2d 871, 877 (7th Cir. 1992). The
Court will dismiss Warden Pfister as a defendant.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.
Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court
finds that the plaintiff states an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need against defendant Doe and Wexford. 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 15.
2.
This 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.
3.
The court will attempt service on the defendants by mailing each defendant a
waiver of service. The defendants have 60 days from the date the waiver is sent to file an
answer. If the defendants have not filed answers 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 deadlines.
4.
With 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 be retained only by the clerk and shall not be maintained in the public
docket nor disclosed by the clerk.
5.
The defendants shall file an answer within 60 days of the date the waiver 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 subsequent pleadings shall be to the issues
and claims stated in this opinion. In general, an answer sets forth the defendants' positions. The
court does not rule on the merits of those positions unless and until a motion is filed by the
defendants. Therefore, no response to the answer is necessary or will be considered.
6.
This district uses electronic filing, which means that, after defense counsel has
filed an appearance, defense counsel will automatically receive electronic notice of any motion
or other paper filed by the plaintiff with the clerk. The plaintiff does not need to mail to defense
counsel copies of motions and other papers that the plaintiff has filed with the clerk. However,
this does not apply to discovery requests and responses. Discovery requests and responses are
not filed with the clerk. The plaintiff must mail his discovery requests and responses directly to
defendants' counsel. Discovery requests or responses sent to the clerk will be returned unfiled,
unless they are attached to and the subject of a motion to compel. Discovery does not begin until
defense counsel has filed an appearance and the court has entered a scheduling order, which will
explain the discovery process in more detail.
7.
Counsel for the defendants is hereby granted leave to depose the plaintiff at his
place of confinement. Counsel for the defendants shall arrange the time for the deposition.
8.
The plaintiff shall immediately notify the court, in writing, of any change in his
mailing address and telephone number. The plaintiff's failure to notify the court of a change in
mailing address or phone number will result in dismissal of this lawsuit, with prejudice.
9.
If a defendant fails to sign and return a waiver of service to the clerk within 30
days after the waiver is sent, the court will take appropriate steps to effect formal service through
the U.S. Marshals service on that defendant and will require that defendant to pay the full costs
of formal service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2).
10.
The clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified protective order pursuant to
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
11.
The clerk is directed to terminate Warden Pfister as a defendant.
12.
The clerk is directed to attempt service on the remaining defendants pursuant to
the standard procedures.
Entered this 11th day of December, 2015.
/s/ Harold A. Baker
___________________________________________
HAROLD A. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?