Lee v. Kalern et al
MERIT REVIEW entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/6/2021. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's IFP petition ECF 2 is DENIED, as the 3-strikes Plaintiff has failed to plead that he is in imminent dangers of serious physical injury. 28 U .S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff will be given 30 days in which to pay the $402.00 filing fee. The failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this case without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee. 2. Plaintiff's Motion f or Service at Government Expense ECF 4 , is DENIED. Plaintiff files a letter ECF 9 and related motion, asking that another inmate be allowed to make payment of the remainder of the filing fee [ECF 10] on his behalf. While Plaintiff does not ad dress it, the Court believes it likely that IDOC prohibits one inmate making payment on the obligations of another and will, therefore, DENY Plaintiff's ECF 10 for this reason. Plaintiff's motion for status 11 , is rendered MOOT by this order. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER.(SAG)
3:20-cv-03349-MMM # 12
Page 1 of 3
Tuesday, 06 April, 2021 08:44:51 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
K. KALERN, NURSE, et al.,
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and confined at the Shawnee Correctional Center
(“Shawnee”), filed a complaint and petition to proceed in forma pauperis, (“IFP”), alleging
various constitutional violations at the Western Correctional Center (“Western”). Plaintiff does
not reveal it, but it is noted that he had previously amassed three “strikes” pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1915(g) for filing frivolous claims. As a result, he cannot proceed IFP unless in imminent
danger of serious physical injury. The case is before the Court for a merit review pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. In reviewing the Complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as true,
liberally construing them in Plaintiffs’ favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649-51 (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. United States, 721
F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). While the pleading
standard does not require “detailed factual allegations”, it requires “more than an unadorned, thedefendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Wilson v. Ryker, 451 Fed. Appx. 588, 589 (7th
Cir. 2011) quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
3:20-cv-03349-MMM # 12
Page 2 of 3
On January 28, 2017, Plaintiff was seen at Western by Defendant Nurse Kalern whom he
claims was deliberately indifferent to his back pain and a keloid scar on his hand. Plaintiff
alleges that on May 14, 2018, Defendant Nurse Practitioner Smith was also deliberately
indifferent to these conditions. He wrote a grievance of the matter to Defendant Nursing Director
Logsdon and alleges that she failed to intervene and failed in her “supervisory liability.” Plaintiff
has also pled Monell claims against the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) and
Wexford, and civil conspiracy claims against IDOC and Wexford. He also requests that the State
of Illinois indemnify the individual Defendants, presumably referring to the State Employee
Indemnification Act, 5 ILCS 350/1, et seq.1 On January 16, 2019, Plaintiff was transferred from
Western to Shawnee.
To proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, Plaintiff must establish that he is in
imminent danger of serious physical harm. The imminent danger exception is to be narrowly
construed as it is “an escape hatch for genuine emergencies,” where “time is pressing” and “a
threat ...is real and proximate.” Heimermann v Litscher, 337 F3d 781 (7th Cir. 2003) citing Lewis
v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002). The threatened harm must be occurring “at the
time the complaint is filed.” Ciarpagini v. Saini, 352 F3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003). In addition,
the danger must involve “serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A court should deny a 3strike plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis “when prisoner's claims of imminent danger
are conclusory or ridiculous.” Ciarpagini, 352 F3d at 330.
Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691-92 (1978) (§ 1983 liable may
attach for constitutional injury resulting from a municipality’s policy or practice). See also, Iskander v. Village of
Forest Park, 690 F.2d 126, 128 (7th Cir. 1982) (applying municipal liability to private corporations performing
3:20-cv-03349-MMM # 12
Page 3 of 3
The complaint at issue, however, alleges conditions which occurred two and three years
prior to the December 22, 2020 date of filing. In addition, Plaintiff has been transferred from the
facility where the alleged constitutional violations took place. Plaintiff fails to establish that he is
in imminent danger of serious physical harm, where he alleges only past incidents not subject to
recurrence. Plaintiff’s petition to proceed IFP [ECF 2], is DENIED. He will have 30 days in
which to pay the full $402.00 filing fee. If he does not do so within the time allotted, the
complaint will be dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
Plaintiff's IFP petition [ECF 2] is DENIED, as the 3-strikes Plaintiff has failed to
plead that he is in imminent dangers of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff
will be given 30 days in which to pay the $402.00 filing fee. The failure to do so will result in the
dismissal of this case without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Service at Government Expense [ECF 4], is DENIED.
Plaintiff files a letter [ECF 9] and related motion, asking that another inmate be allowed to make
payment of the remainder of the filing fee [ECF 10] on his behalf. While Plaintiff does not
address it, the Court believes it likely that IDOC prohibits one inmate making payment on the
obligations of another and will, therefore, DENY Plaintiff’s [ECF 10] for this reason. Plaintiff’s
motion for status , is rendered MOOT by this order.
_____s/Michael M. Mihm______
MICHAEL M. MIHM
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?