Cuprisin v. Tilden et al

Filing 14

MERIT REVIEW AMENDED COMPLAINT entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 1/4/2018. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO: 1) ATTEMPT SERVICE ON DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO THE STANDARD PROCEDURES; AND, 2) SET AN INTERNAL COURT DEADLINE 60 DAYS FRO M THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER FOR THE COURT TO CHECK ON THE STATUS OF SERVICE AND ENTER SCHEDULING DEADLINES. LASTLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT 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. 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). SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER.(SAG, ilcd)

E-FILED

Thursday, 04 January, 2018 04:27:54 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
NICHOLAS CUPRISIN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
DR. ANDREW TILDEN et. al.,
Defendants.

No.: 16-cv-1477-MMM

MERIT REVIEW AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, files an amended complaint alleging deliberate indifference
to his serious medical needs at the Pontiac Correctional Center (“Pontiac”). The case is before
the Court for a merit review 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, 649-51 (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. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). While the pleading standard does not require “detailed factual
allegations”, it requires “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.” Wilson v. Ryker, 451 Fed. Appx. 588, 589 (7th Cir. 2011) quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Plaintiff alleges that he has had Hepatitis C for many years and experiences fatigue, sore
bones, eye dryness, severe headaches, fever, chills, abdominal pain, vomiting blood and liver
inflammation. Plaintiff claims that, since July 1, 2016, he has been seen by Defendant Dr.
Tilden and Defendant Ojealde, a physician’s assistant, and that they have refused to provide him
necessary treatment. He claims, further, that Defendant physicians Matticks and Shicker, along

1

with Defendant Wexford, have established rules and protocols withholding treatment to inmates
with Hepatitis C until they are confined for months or more. It is presumed that Plaintiff was
confined for less than 18 months when he filed the complaint.
Here Plaintiff has pled a colorable claim that Defendants Tilden, Ojelade, Matticks and
Shicker were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. He also pleads liability
against Defendant Wexford for an unconstitutional policy. Monell v. New York City
Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691-92 (1978).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1)

This case shall proceed on the deliberate indifference claims against Defendants

Tilden, Ojelade, Shicker, Matticks and Wexford. All other claims will not be included in the
case, except in the Court's discretion upon motion by a party for good cause shown, or by leave
of court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Plaintiff has not repled claims against
Defendants Pfister, Melvin, Bertowski, Colwell, Wilkey, Fox and Quail and they are
DISMISSED. The clerk is directed to terminate them as parties.
2) Plaintiff files a motion for recruitment of pro bono counsel [12]. In determining
whether the Court should attempt to find an attorney to voluntarily take a case, the question is
whether the plaintiff appears competent to litigate his own claims, given their degree of
difficulty, and this includes the tasks that normally attend litigation: evidence gathering,
preparing and responding to motions and other court filings, and trial. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d
647, 655 (7th Cir. 2007). [12] is DENIED with leave to reassert as the case progresses.
Plaintiff’s motion for status [13] is rendered MOOT by this order.

2

3) The Clerk is directed to send to each Defendant pursuant to this District's internal
procedures: 1) a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service; 2) a Waiver of Service; 3)
a copy of the Complaint; and 4) a copy of this Order.
4) 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 on that
Defendant and will require that Defendant pay the full costs of formal service pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2). If a Defendant no longer works at the address provided
by Plaintiff, the entity for which Defendant worked at the time identified in the Complaint shall
provide to the Clerk Defendant's current work address, or, if not known, Defendant's forwarding
address. This information will be used only for purposes of effecting service. Documentation of
forwarding addresses will be maintained 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 the prescribed by Local Rule. A Motion to
Dismiss is not an answer. The answer it to include all defenses appropriate under the Federal
Rules. The answer and subsequent pleadings are to address the issues and claims identified in
this Order.
6) Plaintiff shall serve upon any Defendant who has been served, but who is not
represented by counsel, a copy of every filing submitted by Plaintiff for consideration by the
Court, and shall also file a certificate of service stating the date on which the copy was mailed.
Any paper received by a District Judge or Magistrate Judge that has not been filed with the Clerk
or that fails to include a required certificate of service will be stricken by the Court.
7) Once counsel has appeared for a Defendant, Plaintiff need not send copies of
filings to that Defendant or to that Defendant's counsel. Instead, the Clerk will file Plaintiff's

3

document electronically and send notice of electronic filing to defense counsel. The notice of
electronic filing shall constitute notice to Defendant pursuant to Local Rule 5.3. If electronic
service on Defendants is not available, Plaintiff will be notified and instructed accordingly.
8) Counsel for Defendants is hereby granted leave to depose Plaintiff at Plaintiff's
place of confinement. Counsel for Defendants shall arrange the time for the depositions.
9) Plaintiff shall immediately notice the Court of any change in mailing address or
phone number. The Clerk is directed 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.
10) Plaintiff files [5], a motion for recruitment of pro bono counsel and later filed
exhibit [8]. While the exhibit contains a handwritten list of several attorneys’ offices, it does not
indicate that Plaintiff contacted them and made attempts to secure counsel on his own. Pruitt v.
Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). [5] is DENIED at this time. In the event Plaintiff
renews his motion for appointment of counsel, he is to provide copies of the letters sent to, and
received from, the attorneys he has contacted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO:
1) ATTEMPT SERVICE ON DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO THE STANDARD
PROCEDURES; AND,
2) 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.
LASTLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT 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
4

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).
ENTERED: 1/4/2018

s/Michael M. Mihm
MICHAEL M. MIHM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5