Broadfield v. Livingston County et al

Filing 11

MERIT REVIEW OPINION - Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 6/8/2016. (Rule 16 Deadline 8/8/2016.) - See written Order. The clerk is directed to attempt service on defendant Dr. Dan Williams pursuant to the standard procedures. All other defendants should be terminated from this case. The clerk is directed to open a new case entitled, Brian D. Broadfield v. William Cox and Jason Durham. The clerk is directed to open a new case entitled, Brian D. Broadfield v. Officer Fosdic. The clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. (LN, ilcd)

E-FILED

Wednesday, 08 June, 2016 11:48:13 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BRIAN D. BROADFIELD,
Plaintiff,
v.
LIVINGSTON COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

16-CV-1092

MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
The plaintiff, a federal inmate currently housed at the Lexington Federal Medical
Center, was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This case is now before the Court
for a merit review of plaintiff’s claims. The court is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to
“screen” the plaintiff’s 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 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 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.
Plaintiff alleges a litany of claims in his complaint. First, the plaintiff alleges that
defendant Williams, the jail doctor, failed to warn the plaintiff about the side effects of the
drugs the plaintiff was prescribed. As a result, the plaintiff alleges that he suffers severe
withdrawal symptoms after he stopped taking the medication, though the plaintiff does not
specify whether he stopped taking his prescription medication because the medical staff
had ordered him to, or whether he did this on his own accord.
Second, the plaintiff alleges that defendant Cox “dumped” the plaintiff out of a
wheelchair after the plaintiff had fallen and hurt his back while defendant Durham stood by
and watched the plaintiff lie on the floor in extreme pain. The plaintiff alleges that
defendant Williams made him wait approximately five (5) months after the injury for an
MRI on his back.

Page 1 of 4

Third, in October, 2015, the plaintiff alleges he was sent to segregation. Defendant
Fosdic, a correctional officer, failed to restrain him after the plaintiff warned him that he
needed to be restrained, or else the plaintiff would continue to inflict harm upon himself.
The plaintiff alleges that he was later left unrestrained in a suicide room where he broke a
window while continuing to kick and slam his face against the window.
Finally, the plaintiff alleges that jail officials are overcharging for commissary items
and phone calls, forcing inmates to remain outside their cells for 12 hours a day and are
violating a series of state laws and regulations.
The plaintiff states three plausible, and unrelated claims: (1) deliberate indifference
to a serious medical need against the jail doctor for failure to order an MRI and arguably
for continually prescribing medication that did not work; (2) excessive force and failure to
protect claims against defendants Cox and Durham; and, (3) deliberate indifference to a
serious mental health need against defendant Fosdic. The plaintiff’s claims for
overcharging, forcing inmates to remain outside their cells, and violations of state laws fails
to state a claim and is dismissed. See Guarjardo-Palma v. Martinson, 622 F.3d 801, 806 (7th
Cir. 2010) (“[A] violation of state law is not a ground for a federal civil rights suit.”).
In this case, the plaintiff’s first claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical
need will proceed against Dr. Dan Williams. The Court will sever the second and third
claims of plaintiff into separate lawsuits pursuant to George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th
Cir. 2007)(separate claims against different defendants belong in separate lawsuits), and
will open a single new case for each claim with a newly-assigned case number. Plaintiff
may proceed on his claims in the newly-severed cases or may voluntarily dismiss one or
both if he does not wish to proceed on those claims and incur the additional filing fees.
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 Dr. Dan Williams. 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.
Page 2 of 4

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 attempt service on defendant Dr. Dan Williams
pursuant to the standard procedures. All other defendants should be terminated from this
case.
Page 3 of 4

12.
The clerk is directed to open a new case entitled, Brian D. Broadfield v.
William Cox and Jason Durham. This newly-severed case will proceed on Eighth
Amendment claims for excessive force and failure to protect against defendants Cox and
Durham. The clerk is also directed to do the following:
(a)

File the complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis from Case
16-1092 into the newly-severed case, and enter the standard text order
ruling on the motion for ifp;

(b)

File this Merit Review and Case Management Order in the newlysevered case;

(c)

Send the standard Notice of Case Opening for the newly-severed case to
the plaintiff with a copy of this Order.

If the plaintiff wishes to voluntarily dismiss this newly-severed case, he must
file a motion within fourteen (14) days. If no motion is filed, the case will proceed
accordingly, and the plaintiff will be responsible for the additional $400 filing fee.
13.
The clerk is directed to open a new case entitled, Brian D. Broadfield v. Officer
Fosdic. This newly-severed case will proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate
indifference to a serious mental health need against defendant Fosdic. The clerk is also
directed to do the following:
(a)

File the complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis from Case
16-1092 into the newly-severed case, and enter the standard text order
ruling on the motion for ifp;

(b)

File this Merit Review and Case Management Order in the newlysevered case;

(c)

Send the standard Notice of Case Opening for the newly-severed case to
the plaintiff with a copy of this Order.

If the plaintiff wishes to voluntarily dismiss this newly-severed case, he must
file a motion within fourteen (14) days. If no motion is filed, the case will proceed
accordingly, and the plaintiff will be responsible for the additional $400 filing fee.
Entered this 8th day of June, 2016.
/s/Harold A. Baker
___________________________________________
HAROLD A. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 4 of 4