Titus v. Kent
Filing
9
MERIT REVIEW OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 7/12/2017. Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915A, the Court finds that the Plaintiff states the following Eighth Amendment claims: an excessive force claim against Defendant Kint and a claim against Defendants Shawny and Maury for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs. Defendants Baptist, Boland, Gresham and Wexford Health Sources are dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim against them. Plaintiff's motion for the Court to appoint counsel is denied, d/e #5 with leave to renew after Plaintiff demonstrates that he has made reasonable efforts to find counsel on his own. This case is now in the process of service. HIPAA Order to enter. (MAS, ilcd)
E-FILED
Wednesday, 12 July, 2017 12:53:46 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ADAM TITUS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER KINT,
et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
17-CV-1249
MERIT REVIEW OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge.
Plaintiff proceeds pro se from his incarceration in Menard
Correctional Center regarding an incident which occurred in
Pontiac Correctional Center. His Complaint is before the Court for a
merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This section requires
the Court to identify cognizable claims stated by the Complaint or
dismiss claims that are not cognizable.1 In reviewing the complaint,
the Court accepts the factual allegations as true, liberally
1
A prisoner who has had three prior actions dismissed for failure to state a claim or as frivolous or malicious can
no longer proceed in forma pauperis unless the prisoner is under “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Page 1 of 9
construing them in Plaintiff's favor and taking Plaintiff’s pro se
status into account. 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)(quoted cite omitted).
Plaintiff alleges that on January 4, 2017, Defendant Kint, a
correctional officer at Pontiac Correctional Center, applied
handcuffs too tightly and then punched Plaintiff in the back while
escorting Plaintiff down the stairs, causing Plaintiff to fall and
sustain painful injuries. Defendant Shawny, a nurse, and other
unidentified defendants, did not provide adequate medical care for
Plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff was allegedly left restrained on a bench
for over seven hours, which resulted in Plaintiff urinating and
defecating on himself. The next day Defendant Maury denied
Plaintiff’s request for pain medication.
Plaintiff states an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim
against Defendant Kint and a claim against Defendants Shawny
and Maury. Plaintiff also names as Defendants the following:
Page 2 of 9
Wexford Health Sources, Inc., Officer Boland, Officer Gresham, and
Officer Baptist. However, the Court cannot tell how these
Defendants were personally involved in the excessive force or denial
of medical care. Additionally, the Court cannot tell which
Defendants, if any, were involved in Plaintiff’s seven-hour restraint.
At this point, the case will proceed on an excessive force claim
against Defendant Kint and a claim against Defendants Shawny
and Maury for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical
needs.
The Court notes that Plaintiff’s attachments suggest that
Plaintiff did not exhaust his available administrative remedies as
required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The attachments appear to show
that Plaintiff did not file his grievance until April 2017, which is
more than 60 days after the incident. 20 Ill.Admin.Code 504.810
(grievance must be filed within 60 days after incident). That
determination, however, is premature.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1)
Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds that Plaintiff states the following
Eighth Amendment claims: an excessive force claim against
Page 3 of 9
Defendant Kint and a claim against Defendants Shawny and Maury
for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. 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) Defendants Baptist, Wexford Health Sources, Boland, and
Gresham are dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim
against them.
3)
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.
4)
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
Page 4 of 9
filed Answers or appeared through counsel within 90 days of the
entry of this order, Plaintiff may file a motion requesting the status
of service. After Defendants have been served, the Court will enter
an order setting discovery and dispositive motion deadlines.
5)
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.
6)
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
Page 5 of 9
Defendants. Therefore, no response to the answer is necessary or
will be considered.
7)
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.
8)
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.
Page 6 of 9
9)
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
or phone number will result in dismissal of this lawsuit, with
prejudice.
10)
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).
11)
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.
12)
Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to appoint counsel is
denied (5), with leave to renew after Plaintiff demonstrates that he
has made reasonable efforts to find counsel on his own. Pruitt v.
Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). This typically requires
writing to several lawyers and attaching the responses. Plaintiff
asserts that he contacted three firms with no response, but he does
Page 7 of 9
not attach copies of the letters or give details about the date sent
and whether Plaintiff’s request for counsel involved this case or his
other pending cases. If Plaintiff renews his motion, he should set
forth how far he has gone in school, any jobs he has held inside and
outside of prison, any classes he has taken in prison, and any prior
litigation experience he has.
13)
The clerk is directed to add to the docket the
following defendants, who were named on page 4 of the
Complaint: Wexford Health Sources, and Correctional Officers
Boland, Gresham, and Maury.
14)
The clerk is directed to terminate Defendants
Wexford Health Sources, and Correctional Officers Boland,
Gresham, and Baptist.
13)
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 Kint, Shawny, and Maury pursuant to
the standard procedures.
Page 8 of 9
14)
The Clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified
protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act.
ENTERED: July 12, 2017
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 9 of 9
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?