Slagle v. Baldwin et al
MERIT REVIEW OPINION entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 9/20/2016. The clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability Act. The clerk is directed to terminated John R. Baldwin and Lt. Jeff Korte as defendants. Motion to Request Counsel 3 was previously ruled on at the merit review hearing. Motion for Service at Government Expense 4 is denied as moot. See written Order. (Rule 16 Deadline 11/21/2016.) John R Baldwin (Director) and Jeff Korte (Warden) terminated.(DS, ilcd)
Tuesday, 20 September, 2016 08:40:47 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOHN R. BALDWIN, et al.,
MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, and currently incarcerated in the Big Muddy
River Correctional Center, was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The case is
now before the court for a merit review of 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 on
August 6, 2014, while he was housed at the Western Illinois Correctional Center,
defendants Lt. Vincent, Officer Hunziker, and Officer Icenogle, while transporting him
to segregation, placed his handcuffs on too tight, lifted his arms in a manner designed
to cause pain, hit, and kicked him while he was hand cuffed. The plaintiff states that
Defendant Rine witnessed the officer’s actions, but did nothing to stop them. Once at
segregation, Defendant Rine and DeRake performed a strip search of the plaintiff in a
degrading manner. The plaintiff also alleges that Defendants Fiegel, Thomas, Carlock,
and Kaler were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in that they denied
him medical treatment, denied him timely shots for his Crohn’s disease, and denied
him access to other medication and treatment. Finally, the plaintiff claims that Warden
Korte and Director Baldwin maintain an unconstitutional policy regarding the use of
force in prisons that make them liable to him in this case.
The plaintiff’s Complaint states four claims: (1) an excessive force against
Defendants Vincent, Hunziker, and Icenogle; (2) a failure to protect or intervene claim
against Defendant Rine; (3) a cruel and unusual punishment claim in violation of his
Eighth Amendment rights based upon the manner in which they conducted his strip
search against Defendants Rine and DeRake; and (4) a deliberate indifference claim to a
serious medical need against Defendants Fiegel, Thomas, Carlock, and Kaler.
The plaintiff’s Complaint does not state a claim against Korte or Baldwin. The
policies upon which the plaintiff’s bases his claim against these defendants are the
Illinois Department of Corrections’ (“IDOC”) policies on the use of force. These policies
are not facially unconstitutional, nor are they unconstitutional as applied. The other
defendants may have acted unconstitutionally, but neither Baldwin nor Korte can be
held liable based upon the drafting of the IDOC’s policies on the use of force, especially
where the plaintiff has not alleged that either Baldwin or Korte drafted or created these
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the
court finds that the plaintiff states Eighth Amendment claims for (1) excessive force
against Defendants Vincent, Hunziker, and Icenogle; (2) failure to protect or intervene
claim against Defendant Rine; (2) cruel and unusual punishment claim based upon the
manner in which they conducted his strip search against Defendants Rine and DeRake;
and (3) deliberate indifference claim to a serious medical need against Defendants
Fiegel, Thomas, Carlock, and Kaler. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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,
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
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 terminate John R. Baldwin and Lt. Jeff Korte as
The clerk is directed to attempt service on the remaining defendants
pursuant to the standard procedures.
Plaintiff’s motion for counsel (#3) is denied, with leave to renew upon
demonstrating that he made attempts to hire his own counsel. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d
647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). This typically requires writing to several lawyers and
attaching the responses. If Plaintiff renews his motion, he should set forth how far he
has gone in school, any jobs he has held inside and outside of prison, any classes he has
taken in prison, and any prior litigation experience he has.
Plaintiff’s motion for service at government expense (#4) is denied as
MOOT. The Court accomplishes service without a request from a pro se prisoner
Entered this 20th day of September, 2016
/s/ Harold A. Baker
HAROLD A. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?