Beckman v. Saddler et al
Filing
5
OPINION: The hearing scheduled for March 11, 2013, is cancelled. Pursuant to its review of the Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff states a federal constitutional claim against Defendants Saddler and Ashby arising from failure to provide guard rails and ladders for the top bunks at Rushville Treatment and Detention Center. Defendants Lochard, Williams, Kune, and McAdory are dismissed. This cause is set for further scheduling procedures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 on May 20, 2013 at 1:30 p.m., or as soon as the Court can reach the case, before U. S. District Judge Sue E. Myerscough by telephone conference. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 3/5/2013. (MJ, ilcd)
E-FILED
Tuesday, 05 March, 2013 09:27:03 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
MICHAEL BECKMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHELLE SADDLER,
HUGHES LOCHARD,
FORREST ASHBY,
DALE KUNE,
TARRY WILLIAMS, and
EUGENE MCADORY,1
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
13-CV-3025
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and detained in the Rushville
Treatment and Detention Center, seeks leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. He alleges that the top bunks at the facility have no
guard rails or ladders, and that he has fallen out of the top bunk
twice while sleeping, sustaining serious injuries.
The Court cannot rule out a possible claim for deliberate
indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm arising from the
alleged failure to provide ladders and guard rails on the top bunks.
1
Plaintiff spells this as "McDory" but the Court knows from other cases that the proper spelling is "McAdory."
1
The claim will proceed against Defendants Saddler and Ashby, who
might plausibly have the authority to remedy this problem.
However, no plausible inference of personal responsibility arises
against Dr. Lochard, Dale Kune (the security director), Tarry
Williams, or Eugene McAdory (former security directors).
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The hearing scheduled for March 11, 2013, is cancelled. The
clerk is directed to notify Plaintiff’s prison of the cancellation.
2. Pursuant to its review of the Complaint, the Court finds that
Plaintiff states a federal constitutional claim against
Defendants Saddler and Ashby arising from failure to provide
guard rails and ladders for the top bunks at Rushville
Treatment and Detention Center. 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.
3. Defendants Lochard, Williams, Kune, and McAdory are
dismissed.
2
4. The Clerk is directed to send to each Defendant pursuant to
this District's internal procedures: 1) a Notice of Lawsuit and
Request for Waiver of Service; 2) a Waiver of Service; 3) a copy
of the Complaint; and 4) this order.
5. 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. 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).
6. 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.
3
7. Defendants shall file an answer within the time prescribed by
Local Rule. 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.
8. Plaintiff shall serve upon any Defendant who has been served
but who is not represented by counsel a copy of every filing
submitted by Plaintiff for consideration by the Court and shall
also file a certificate of service stating the date on which the
copy was mailed. Any paper received by a District Judge or
Magistrate Judge that has not been filed with the Clerk or that
fails to include a required certificate of service shall be
stricken by the Court.
9. Once counsel has appeared for a Defendant, Plaintiff need not
send copies of his filings to that Defendant or to that
Defendant's counsel. Instead, the Clerk will file Plaintiff's
document electronically and send a notice of electronic filing
to defense counsel. The notice of electronic filing shall
constitute service on Defendants pursuant to Local Rule 5.3.
4
If electronic service on Defendants is not available, Plaintiff
will be notified and instructed accordingly.
10. This cause is set for further scheduling procedures under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 on May 20, 2013 at 1:30 p.m., or as soon as
the Court can reach the case, before U. S. District Judge Sue
E. Myerscough by telephone conference. The conference will
be cancelled if service has been accomplished and no pending
issues need discussion. Accordingly, no writ shall issue for
Plaintiff’s presence unless directed by the Court.
11. 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.
12. 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.
ENTERED: March 5, 2013
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?