Teague v. Korte et al

Filing 8

MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER - Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 10/28/2014. Rule 16 Deadline 12/29/2014. The clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountabi lity Act. The clerk is directed to terminate defendants Jeffery P. Korte and Lieutenant Megason. The clerk is directed to attempt service on defendant Paul F. Vincent pursuant to the standard procedures. (cc Plaintiff via scanning program.)(LN, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 28 October, 2014 04:18:07 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DAVID TEAGUE,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFERY P. KORTE, Warden, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14-cv-3254

MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
The case 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.”
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). 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, proceeding pro se and incarcerated in the Western Illinois
Correctional Center, was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The plaintiff filed
this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Lieutenant Paul Vincent has
threatened the plaintiff and placed him in segregation in retaliation for the plaintiff
having filed grievances against defendant Vincent. The plaintiff also names Warden
Korte and Internal Affairs Officer Megason, but directs no allegations towards them.
The plaintiff further alleges an “access to courts” violation but does not provide any
details. While the plaintiff claims that he received no response from the Warden after
filing two emergency grievances, this does not consitute an access to courts claim as the
plaintiff has no constitutional right to a grievance process. Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d
1422, 1430 (7th Cir. 1996). Further, the plaintiff does not claim that the defendants’
actions have hampered ongoing litigation. Ortloff v. U.S., 335 F.3d 652, 656 (7th Cir.
2003).
Page 1 of 3

The Court concludes that the plaintiff has stated a colorable claim for
retaliation, and the case will proceed solely against Defendant Vincent. The plaintiff’s
“access to courts” claim is dismissed. This case will accordingly be sent for service on
the constitutional claim stated below.
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 a First Amendment retaliation claim against
Lieutenant Paul Vincent. 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.

Page 2 of 3

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 terminate defendants Jeffery P. Korte and
Lieutenant Megason.
12.
The clerk is directed to attempt service on defendant Paul F. Vincent
pursuant to the standard procedures.
Entered this 28th day of October, 2014.
/s/ Harold A. Baker
HAROLD A. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3