McDonald-Robinson v. Cox
Filing
6
MERIT REVIEW OPINION. Rule 16 Deadline 9/10/2018. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds that Plaintiff states a constitutional claim for excessive force. This case is now in the process of service. The Court will attempt service on Defendants by mailing each Defendant a waiver of service. The clerk is directed to enter the standard order granting Plaintiff's in forma pauperis petition and assessing an initia l 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 by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 07/11/2018. (DM, ilcd)
E-FILED
Wednesday, 11 July, 2018 03:09:21 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
00UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOSIAH JOSEPH MCDONALDROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
DWAYNE COX,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
18-CV-1212
MERIT REVIEW OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge.
Plaintiff proceeds pro se from his incarceration in Peoria
County Jail. 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 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).
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 7
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 May 15, 2018, inmates were told to go
on lock down at the Peoria County Jail. Plaintiff refused but offered
to go to the “naked” cell, which is allegedly an isolation cell with a
24-hour watch. Plaintiff told Officer Cox that Plaintiff “would be ok
as long as no one touched me.” (Compl. p. 6.) Officer Cox
responded by touching Plaintiff on the shoulder despite Plaintiff
telling Officer Cox that Plaintiff was not playing around and needed
isolation. Officer Cox then allegedly punched Plaintiff in Plaintiff’s
jaw, whereupon Plaintiff struck back in self-defense. Further
altercation ensued, and Cox tased Plaintiff in the back four to seven
times. A criminal charge is pending against Plaintiff for aggravated
battery based on this incident. Illinois v. Robinson, 18-CF-277
(Peoria County).
Plaintiff seeks to file criminal charges against Officer Cox, but
the Court cannot order a prosecutor to pursue charges. Plaintiff
does state a claim for excessive force, which will proceed. However,
Page 2 of 7
if Plaintiff is convicted or pleads guilty in the aggravated battery
case, then Plaintiff will not be able to pursue claims that are
inconsistent with that conviction or guilty plea. Additionally, this
case will likely have to be stayed pending the resolution of the
aggravated battery case. Those determinations will be made after
defense counsel has appeared, and the record is more developed.
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 a constitutional
claim for 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
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
Page 3 of 7
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
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
Page 4 of 7
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.
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.
Page 5 of 7
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
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
Page 6 of 7
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.
ENTERED: July 11, 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?