Jablonski v. Young et al
Filing
5
MERIT REVIEW OPINION: The clerk is directed to attempt service on Defendants pursuant to the standard procedures. The Clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Rule 16 Deadline 7/1/2016. (SEE WRITTEN OPINION) Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 5/2/2016. (GL, ilcd)
E-FILED
Monday, 02 May, 2016 12:19:00 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DANIEL JABLONSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
YOUNG, et. al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
15-CV-1450
MERIT REVIEW OPINION
This cause is before the Court for merit review of the pro se
Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A. In 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 (7th Cir. 2103). 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)(quoted cite omitted).
ALLEGATIONS
The pro se Plaintiff, a state prisoner, claims his constitutional
rights were violated when he was a pretrial detainee at the Tazewell
Page 1 of 8
County Jail. Plaintiff has named three Defendants including
Correctional Officer Young, Correctional Officer Carney, and
Commander John Doe.
In May of 2015, Plaintiff says he began to experience “severe
pain” in his left arm, but Defendant Young refused two requests for
medical care. (Comp., p. 4). Plaintiff asked to speak with a
supervisor, and Commander John Doe responded. However, the
Commander also refused Plaintiff’s requests and instead sent the
Plaintiff to segregation. The Defendant also applied handcuffs and
pushed Plaintiff’s arms in the air intentionally causing additional
pain.
In segregation, Plaintiff asked Defendant Carney for medical
attention, but his requests were again ignored and Plaintiff was
ultimately sent to the Illinois Department of Corrections without
receiving any medical care.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff has adequately alleged Defendants Young, Carney,
and Doe violated his constitutional rights when they were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical condition. In
addition, Plaintiff has alleged Defendant Doe used excessive force
Page 2 of 8
when the officer handcuffed the Plaintiff and transferred him to
segregation.
Plaintiff also says he was denied grievance forms to complain
about the lack of care and he was, therefore, denied meaningful
access to the courts. However, Plaintiff does not list this allegation
as one of his intended claims.(Comp., p. 7). Furthermore, Plaintiff
has failed to state a constitutional violation since he was able to
pursue the instant lawsuit. See Ortiz v. Downey, 561 F.3d 664, 671
(7th Cir. 2009)(plaintiff must allege the deprivation caused an
actual injury); see also Campbell v. Clarke, 481 F.3d 967, 968 (7th
Cir.2007) (holding that a prisoner must allege that “a lack of access
to legal materials has undermined,” or caused to founder, “a
concrete piece of litigation”).
Finally, Plaintiff alleges he is suing each Defendant in his
individual and official capacities, but Plaintiff has failed to
articulate an official capacity claim.
IT
1)
IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds that Plaintiff states the following
claims: a) Defendants Young, Carney, and Doe were deliberately
Page 3 of 8
indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical condition; and, b) Defendant
Doe used excessive force against the Plaintiff. Both claims are
stated against the Defendants in their individual capacities. This
case proceeds solely on the claims identified in this paragraph.
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. 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 mailing
each Defendant a waiver of service. Defendants have 60 days from
the date the waiver 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
Page 4 of 8
of service. After 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 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
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 Defendants' positions. The Court does not rule
on the merits of those positions unless and until a motion is filed by
Defendants. Therefore, no response to the answer is necessary or
will be considered.
Page 5 of 8
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 Plaintiff with the Clerk. Plaintiff does not need to mail to
Defense counsel copies of motions and other papers that 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. 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 Defendants is hereby granted leave to depose
Plaintiff at his place of confinement. Counsel for Defendants shall
arrange the time for the deposition.
8)
Plaintiff shall immediately notify the Court, in writing, of
any change in his mailing address and telephone number.
Plaintiff's failure to notify the Court of a change in mailing address
Page 6 of 8
or phone number will result in dismissal of this lawsuit, with
prejudice.
9)
If a Defendants 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.
Marshal's 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)
Within 10 days of receiving from Defendants' counsel an
authorization to release medical records, Plaintiff is directed to sign
and return the authorization to Defendants' counsel.
11)
The clerk is directed to enter the standard order
granting Plaintiff's in forma pauperis petition and assessing an
initial partial filing fee, if not already done, and to attempt
service on Defendants pursuant to the standard procedures.
12)
The Clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified
protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act.
Page 7 of 8
13)
The Clerk is to set an internal court deadline 60 days
from the entry of this order for the Court to check on the
status of service and enter scheduling deadlines.
ENTERED: May 2, 2016
FOR THE COURT:
s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 8 of 8
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?