Schaefer v. Woods et al

Filing 9

MERIT REVIEW ORDER entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 11/16/2020. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1) Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to clearly state a claim upon which relief can be granted and violation of Rule 8 of the Federal Ru les of Civil Procedure. 2) Plaintiff must file a motion for leave to amend with a complete proposed complaint attached in compliance with this order within 21 days or on or before December 8, 2020. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or before December 8, 2020 or fails to follow the Court's directions, his case will be dismissed without prejudice. 3) Plaintiff must fill out a revised motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis within 21 days or on or before December 8, 2020. 4) Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is denied with leave to renew. 4 5) The Clerk is to provide Plaintiff with blank complaint and IFP forms to assist him. In addition, the Clerk should reset the internal merit review deadline within 21 days of this order. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER.(SAG, ilcd)

2:20-cv-02192-JES # 9

Page 1 of 5

E-FILED

Monday, 16 November, 2020 04:33:43 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CARL SCHAEFER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JEFF WOODS and RUTH BOTTOM,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 20-2192

MERIT REVIEW ORDER
JAMES E. SHADID, U.S. District Judge:
This cause is before the Court for merit review of the Plaintiff’s complaint. 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.
Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, claims his constitutional rights were violated by
Sheriff Jeff Woods and Nurse Ruth Bottom at the Edgar County Jail. Plaintiff says he
was transferred to the jail from Danville Correctional Center on November 18, 2019.
Plaintiff was placed in a cell which was so cold he had to wear a coat to try and stay
warm.
In addition, the nurse who made evening rounds did not have Plaintiff’s
medication. The nurse promised to investigate, but Plaintiff said he became “stressed
out” worrying about when he would receive his medication. (Comp, p. 5). Plaintiff
1

2:20-cv-02192-JES # 9

Page 2 of 5

does not provide the name of the nurse in the body of his complaint but he has
identified Nurse Ruth Bottom in his list of Defendants.
Plaintiff is alleging a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights based on the cold
conditions and a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights for deliberate indifference to
a serious medical condition.1 Unfortunately, Plaintiff has not provided an adequate
factual basis for his claims.
For instance, Plaintiff’s medical claim does not identify the specific medication or
why he needed to take medication. Plaintiff also does not state how long he went
without his medication and whether it had any impact on his condition. Plaintiff
should also clarify whether Nurse Bottom was the nurse he spoke with and whether or
not anyone responded to his questions about his medication.
In addition, Plaintiff does not state how long he remained in a cold cell.
Furthermore, Plaintiff again fails to allege whether any specific Defendant knew about
the cold conditions in his cell. In order to hold an individual liable under Section 1983,
Plaintiff must “show that the defendants were personally responsible for the
deprivation of their rights.” Wilson v. Warren Cty., Illinois, 2016 WL 3878215, at *3 (7th
Cir. 2016). “A defendant is personally responsible ‘if the conduct causing the

Based on Plaintiff’s complaint, it appears he was a convicted prisoner at the time of his
allegations; therefore, his claims are pursuant to the Eighth Amendment instead of the
Fourteenth Amendment. See Smith v. Dart, 803 F.3d 304, 209 (7th Cir. 2015).

1

2

2:20-cv-02192-JES # 9

Page 3 of 5

constitutional deprivation occurs at his direction or with his knowledge and consent.’”
Id. quoting Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561 (7th Cir. 1995). In addition, the mere
fact that a defendant was a supervisor is insufficient to establish liability because the
doctrine of respondeat superior (supervisor liability) does not apply to actions filed under
42 USC §1983. See Smith v. Gomez, 550 F.3d 613, 616 (7th Cir. 2008)(supervisor liability
not permitted under § 1983); Pacelli v. DeVito, 972 F.2d 871, 877 (7th Cir. 1992)
(Supervisors are not liable for the errors of their subordinates).
Did the Plaintiff complain to any officers on the unit about the temperature or
did the officers know about the conditions in his cell? How does Plaintiff know the
Sheriff was aware of the problem in Plaintiff’s cell?
For the reasons stated, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint as a violation
of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for failure to clearly state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. However, the Court will allow Plaintiff additional
time to file an amended complaint clarifying his claims.
The amended complaint must stand complete on its own, must include all claims
against all Defendants, and must not refer to the previous complaint. Plaintiff’s
amended complaint should answer the questions outlined in this order. If Plaintiff does
not know the name of a specific Defendant, he should instead provide some identifying
information such as whether they were male or female, a physical description if
possible, the general time frame of Plaintiff’s encounter with that person, and where it
occurred.

3

2:20-cv-02192-JES # 9

Page 4 of 5

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. [4]. Plaintiff has no
constitutional right to the appointment of counsel and the Court cannot require an
attorney to accept pro bono appointment in a civil case. The most the Court can do is ask
for volunteer counsel. See Jackson v. County of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070, 1071 (7th Cir. 1992).
In considering Plaintiff’s motion, the Court must ask two questions: “(1) has the
indigent plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or been effectively
precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff
appear competent to litigate it himself?” Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007),
citing Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319, 322 (7th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff has not demonstrated any
attempt to find counsel on his own such as a list of attorneys contacted. Therefore, the
motion is denied with leave to renew. [4].
The Court also notes Plaintiff is no longer in custody. Therefore, the Court will
require Plaintiff to provide an updated motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
with information concerning his current income. Plaintiff must fill out the form in its
entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to clearly state a claim upon which
relief can be granted and violation of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
2) Plaintiff must file a motion for leave to amend with a complete proposed
complaint attached in compliance with this order within 21 days or on or before
December 8, 2020. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or before
4

2:20-cv-02192-JES # 9

Page 5 of 5

December 8, 2020 or fails to follow the Court’s directions, his case will be
dismissed without prejudice.
3) Plaintiff must fill out a revised motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
within 21 days or on or before December 8, 2020.
4) Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied with leave to renew. [4]
5) The Clerk is to provide Plaintiff with blank complaint and IFP forms to assist
him. In addition, the Clerk should reset the internal merit review deadline
within 21 days of this order.
Entered this 16th day of November, 2020.

s/James E. Shadid
_________________________________________
JAMES E. SHADID
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5