Stevens v. Bukowski et al

Filing 10

MERIT REVIEW OPINION. Rule 16 Deadline 12/21/2015. 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 pursuant to the standard procedures. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 10/20/2015. (MJ, ilcd)

E-FILED

Thursday, 22 October, 2015 11:06:12 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
URBANA DIVISION
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
TIMOTHY BUKOWSKI, et al.
)
Defendants. )
DEERIC M. STEVENS,

15-2177

MERIT REVIEW OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and presently incarcerated at
Metropolitan Correctional Center, brings the present lawsuit
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need and failure to protect from harm for events
that alleged occurred during his incarceration at Jerome Combs
Detention Center. The matter comes before this Court for merit
review under 28 U.S.C. §1915A. In reviewing the complaint, the
Court takes all factual allegations as true, liberally construing them
in 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
Page 1 of 7

plausible on its face.” Alexander v. U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir.
2013) (internal citation omitted).
ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff is a federal pretrial detainee. All allegations in this
lawsuit stem from events that allegedly occurred during Plaintiff’s
incarceration at Jerome Combs Detention Center (“JCDC”). The
Defendants are all employed at JCDC in various capacities.
Plaintiff alleges that on December 26, 2013, he was assaulted
by other inmates. Plaintiff alleges he suffered a broken jaw. After
the attack, Plaintiff alleges he was taken to a disciplinary
segregation cell and his repeated requests for medical treatment
were ignored. Plaintiff alleges that he was bleeding profusely from
his face and the need for medical care was so obvious that other
inmates in segregation tried to notify JCDC officials of Plaintiff’s
condition. Plaintiff alleges he now suffers from extreme pain, nerve
damage, and difficulty eating.
Plaintiff also alleges that JCDC officials knew of an increased
risk to the safety of all inmates as a shank was found approximately
eight (8) days prior to the alleged attack. Still, Plaintiff alleges that

Page 2 of 7

JCDC officials failed to adequately staff his housing pod and, as a
result, JCDC officials were unable to come to his aid.
ANALYSIS
As a pretrial detainee, Plaintiff’s claim arises under the
Fourteenth Amendment, rather than the Eighth Amendment’s
proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. Mayoral v.
Sheahan, 245 F.2d 934, 938 (7th Cir. 2001). Despite this
distinction, there exists “little practical difference between the two
standards.” Id. (quoting Weiss v. Cooley, 230 F.3d 1027, 1032 (7th
Cir. 2000)).
Denial of Medical Care
To state a claim for inadequate medical care, the Plaintiff must
allege that the prison official acted with deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976).
Deliberate indifference is more than negligence, but does not
require the plaintiff to show that the defendants intended to cause
harm. Mayoral, 245 F.3d at 938. Liability attaches under the
Eighth Amendment when “the official knows of and disregards an
excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be
aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a
Page 3 of 7

substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the
inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
Plaintiff alleges he suffered a broken jaw and that JCDC
officials ignored his requests for medical help despite the obvious
nature of his injuries. Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim for
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
Failure to Protect
To state a claim for failure to protect, a plaintiff must allege (1)
“that he is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk
of serious harm,” and, (2) prison officials acted with “deliberate
indifference” to that risk. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834
(1994). For purposes of satisfying the first prong, “it does not
matter whether the risk comes from a single source or multiple
sources, any more than it matters whether a prisoner faces an
excessive risk of attack for reasons personal to him or because all
prisoners in his situation face such a risk.” Id. at 843. Liability
attaches where “deliberate indifference by prison officials effectively
condones the attack by allowing it to happen….” Haley v. Gross, 86
F.3d 630, 640 (7th Cir. 1996).

Page 4 of 7

Plaintiff alleges that JCDC officials failed to adequately staff
his housing pod even in light of the fact that a homemade weapon
(shank) had been found in the pod. Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s
allegations could support a claim that he faced a substantial risk of
harm to his safety and that prison officials were deliberately
indifferent. Therefore, the Court cannot rule out a constitutional
claim at this point.
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 claims: Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need and failure to protect.
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 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
Page 5 of 7

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 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 6 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
initial partial filing fee, if not already done, and to attempt
service on Defendants pursuant to the standard procedures.
ENTERED:

October 20, 2015

FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 7 of 7