Castile v. Rodrick et al
MERIT REVIEW OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 4/13/2018. Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds that Plaintiff states constitutional claims for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff 39;s medical and mental health needs, excessive force, and failure to intervene to stop or prevent that excessive force. This case is now in the process of service. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint, d/e 5 is DENIED as unnecessary. HIPAA Order to enter. (SEE WRITTEN MERIT REVIEW OPINION) Rule 16 Deadline 6/12/2018. (MAS, ilcd)
Friday, 13 April, 2018 09:27:50 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
C/O RODRICK, et al.,
MERIT REVIEW OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge.
Plaintiff filed this case pro se from his incarceration in Pontiac
Correctional Center. The IDOC website currently states that
Plaintiff is incarcerated in Hill Correctional Center, though the
docket states that Plaintiff’s current prison is Menard Correctional
Center. The clerk will send this order to Hill Correctional Center,
but Plaintiff must let the Court know whenever his address changes
or this case could be dismissed.
Plaintiff’s Complaint is before the Court for a merit review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This section requires the Court to
Page 1 of 7
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 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’s allegations are somewhat difficult to decipher but
appear to recount an incident at Pontiac Correctional Center on
June 1, 2017. Plaintiff appears to allege that he intentionally cut
himself due to his mental illness and was then subjected to
excessive force and denied adequate medical and mental health
care. At this point, the Court cannot rule out claims for deliberate
indifference to Plaintiff’s medical and mental health needs,
excessive force, and failure to intervene to stop or prevent that
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 2 of 7
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds that Plaintiff states constitutional
claims for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s medical and mental
health needs, excessive force, and failure to intervene to stop or
prevent that excessive force. 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
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.
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 3 of 7
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.
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.
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 4 of 7
Defendants. Therefore, no response to the answer is necessary or
will be considered.
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.
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 5 of 7
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
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).
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.
Plaintiff has filed a second complaint which has been
docketed as a motion for leave to file an amended complaint.
The motion is denied as unnecessary (d/e 5) because the
second complaint appears duplicative of the first complaint.
The clerk is directed to update Plaintiff’s address in
the docket to Hill Correctional Center. Plaintiff must tell the
Page 6 of 7
Court anytime his address changes or this case may be
The clerk is directed to enter the standard order
granting Plaintiff's in forma pauperis petitions and assessing an
initial partial filing fee, if not already done, and 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.
ENTERED: April 13, 2018
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 7 of 7
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?