Williams v. Miller et al

Filing 6

MERIT REVIEW OPINION - Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 5/15/2017. Rule 16 Deadline 7/14/2017. The clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The clerk is directed to attempt service on Defendants Lochard and Wexford pursuant to the standard procedures. The clerk is directed to add Victor Calloway as a defendant and attempt service via the standard procedures. (LN, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 15 May, 2017 11:30:10 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PARIS WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARY MILLER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

17-CV-2096

MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated in the Danville
Correctional Center (“Danville”), was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The
case is now before the court for a merit review of the plaintiff’s claims. The court is
required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to “screen” the plaintiff’s complaint, and through such
process to identify and dismiss any legally insufficient claim, or the entire action if
warranted. A claim is legally insufficient if it “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
In reviewing the complaint, the court accepts the factual allegations as true,
liberally construing them in the 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 plausible on its face.”
Alexander v. U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(citation omitted). The court has
reviewed the complaint and has also held a merit review hearing in order to give the
plaintiff a chance to personally explain his claims to the court.
The plaintiff filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that he
suffers from chronic knee pain that was eventually diagnosed as a meniscus tear and
having a “flexion contracture.” Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Lochard, the prison
physician, and Mary Miller, the healthcare administrator, refused to follow the
recommendations of specialists in treating his knee conditions, at one point failing to
provide any treatment. Plaintiff also suggests that this denial of treatment was caused
by an unconstitutional policy or practice implemented by Wexford Health Sources
(“Wexford”), the company contracted to provide medical service at the prison.

Plaintiff states a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need based
upon the defendants’ alleged refusal to provide treatment and follow a specialist’s
recommendations. Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2016). Plaintiff also states an
official policy claim against Wexford. Monell v. Dept of Social Serv. of City of New York,
436 U.S. 658 (1978).
In addition, the Court is aware from other litigation that Defendant Mary Miller
is deceased. In light of this fact, the Court will not attempt service on her. Instead, the
Court will name Victor Calloway, the warden of Danville Correctional Center, as a
defendant for purposes of filing a Notice of Suggestion of Death pursuant to Rule 25 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and identifying any successor or representative of
Mary Miller’s interests. See Donald v. Cook Cnty.Sheriff’s Dep’t, 95 F.3d 548, 555-56 (7th
Cir. 1996). Plaintiff is advised that he must comply with the requirements of Rule 25 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as it relates to substitution of defendants.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.
Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the
court finds that the plaintiff states an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need against defendants Miller and Lochard, and an
official policy claim against Wexford. 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. The plaintiff is advised to wait
until counsel has appeared for the defendants before filing any motions, in order to give
the 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. The 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 the defendants by mailing each
defendant a waiver of service. The defendants have 60 days from the date the waiver is
sent to file an answer. If the defendants have not filed answers or appeared through
counsel within 90 days of the entry of this order, the plaintiff may file a motion
requesting the status of service. After the 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 the 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.
The 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 the defendants' positions. The court does not rule on the merits of those
positions unless and until a motion is filed by the 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 the plaintiff with the clerk. The plaintiff does not
need to mail to defense counsel copies of motions and other papers that the 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. The 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.
7.
Counsel for the defendants is hereby granted leave to depose the plaintiff
at his place of confinement. Counsel for the defendants shall arrange the time for the
deposition.
8.
The plaintiff shall immediately notify the court, in writing, of any change
in his mailing address and telephone number. The 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 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. Marshals 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.
The clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified protective order
pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
11.
The clerk is directed to attempt service on Defendants Lochard and
Wexford pursuant to the standard procedures.

12.
The clerk is directed to add Victor Calloway as a defendant and attempt
service via the standard procedures.
Entered this 15th day of May, 2017
/s/ Harold A. Baker
___________________________________________
HAROLD A. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE