Butler v. Mills et al
Filing
7
MERIT REVIEW OPINION entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 9/19/2014. Rule 16 Deadline 11/18/2014. (JMW, ilcd)
E-FILED
Friday, 19 September, 2014 01:53:00 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
HAROLD BUTLER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
14-3197
RONDA MILLS, et.al.,
Defendants.
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
This cause is 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.
The Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983
claiming his constitutional rights were violated at Western Illinois Correctional Center by
Defendants Ronda Mills, Warden Tarry Williams, Grievance Officer Tara Goins,
Counselor Vincent and Health Care Administrator Shoemaker. The Plaintiff alleges the
Defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical condition. During the merit
review hearing, the Plaintiff clarified that he had previously suffered a dislocated
shoulder at Menard Correctional Center in January of 2012. After the Plaintiff transferred
to Western Illinois Correctional Center, he reinjured his shoulder. The Plaintiff told
Nurse Mills he was in extreme pain in December of 2013, but she refused to provide him
medical care. The documents attached to the Plaintiff’s complaint indicate the nurse did
provide Tylenol, but the Plaintiff said his shoulder was dislocated and he needed
additional care. The Plaintiff maintains he is still suffering in extreme pain.
In his complaint, the Plaintiff says he has named Defendants Warden Tarry
Williams, Grievance Officer Tara Goins, Counselor Vincent and Health Care
Administrator Shoemaker because they failed to investigate the claims in his grievances.
The Plaintiff has attached various documents to his complaint including his grievances.
In each instance, the grievance officer spoke with the Health Care Administrator who
indicated the Plaintiff had been seen and treated by medical staff. (Comp, 1-1, p. 3, 6).
The Plaintiff has also provided copies of medical records which demonstrate he was seen
by medical staff in January, February and April of 2014 concerning his shoulder pain.
(Comp. 1-1, p. 12-17). In addition, an x-ray was done of his shoulder in February of 2014
which showed no abnormality. (Comp., 1-1, p. 14).
1
Since the Plaintiff says he was provided no care when he complained to Nurse
Mills that he was in severe pain, the Plaintiff has articulated a claim that the nurse was
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical condition when she either refused or
delayed medical care. However, the Plaintiff has not articulated a claim against any other
named Defendant. The documents attached to the Plaintiff’s complaint indicate once the
Defendants received his grievances, they verified the Plaintiff was receiving medical care.
A prison official does not disregard an inmate's complaint if he knows that the medical
staff was monitoring and addressing the problem. See Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d
1001, 1010 (7th Cir.2006) )(health care unit administrator did not have personal
involvement sufficient for liability when he investigated complaints, referred to a doctor
and reasonably relied on doctor’s opinion). “We do not think [a prison official's] failure to
take further action once he had referred the matter to the medical providers can be viewed
as deliberate indifference.” Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 655-56 (7th Cir.2005); see
also Williams v. Cearlock, 993 F. Supp. 1192, 1197 (C.D. Ill. 1998)( prison
administrators without medical expertise “must rely on health care professionals to assess
the needs of prisoners and initiate treatment.”).
In addition, the Warden’s failure to respond to the Plaintiff’s emergency grievance
does not state a constitutional violation. “[A] state's inmate grievance procedures do not
give rise to a liberty interest protected by the due process clause.” Antonelli v. Sheahan,
81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir.1995). The Constitution requires no procedure at all, and
the failure of state prison officials to follow their own procedures does not, of itself,
violate the Constitution. Maust v. Headley, 959 F.2d 644, 648 (7th Cir.1992); Shango v.
Jurich, 681 F.2d 1091 (7th Cir.1982). Therefore, prison officials incur no liability under
§ 1983 if they fail or refuse to investigate such grievances. See Perales v Bowlin, 644
F.Supp.2d 1090, 1100 (N.D. Ill. 2009)(ignoring grievance or failing to investigate does
not make an official liable for damages under Sec. 1983).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1) Pursuant to its merit review of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the
court finds the Plaintiff alleges Defendant Ronda Mills violated his Eighth
Amendment rights when she was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
condition. The claim is stated against the Defendant in her individual capacity
only. 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
2
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 service 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 the Federal Rules. The answer and subsequent
pleadings shall be to the issues and claims stated in this Order. 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) 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. If electronic service on Defendants is not available,
Plaintiff will be notified and instructed accordingly.
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.
3
9) 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.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO:
1) Dismiss Defendants Warden Tarry Williams, Grievance Officer Tara
Goins, Counselor Vincent and Health Care Administrator Shoemaker for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to by 28
U.S.C. §1915A; 2) Attempt service on Defendants pursuant to the standard
procedures; 3) set an internal court deadline 60 days from the entry of this
order for the court to check on the status of service and enter scheduling
deadlines and 4) enter the Court's standard qualified protective order
pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
Lastly, it is ordered that if a Defendant fails to sign and return a waiver of
service for 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).
ENTERED this 19th day of September, 2014.
/s/Harold A. Baker
____________________________________________
HAROLD A. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?