Williams v. Hill Correctional Center et al
Filing
12
MERIT REVIEW OPINION ON AMENDED COMPLAINT entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 12/23/2016. IT IS ORDERED: 1) Plaintiff's motion for appointed counsel is denied (5). 2) Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis isdenied as un necessary (10). Plaintiff is already proceeding in forma pauperis. 3) Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint is granted (11). 4) Plaintiff's amended complaint fails to state a federal claim. Accordingly, this action is di smissed for failure to state a claim and a strike is assessed against Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). 5) Plaintiff must still pay the full filing fee of $350 even though his case has been dismissed. The agency having custody of Plaintif f shall continue to make monthly payments to the Clerk of Court, as directed in the Court's prior order. 6) If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he must file a notice of appeal with this Court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Fe d. R. App. P. 4(a). A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis should set forth the issues Plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If Plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $505 appellate fi ling fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. 7) The clerk is directed to separately docket the amended complaint. 8) The clerk is directed to record Plaintiff's strike in the three-strike log. 9) The clerk is directed to enter judgment. SEE FULL WRITTEN OPINION. (JS, ilcd)
E-FILED
Friday, 23 December, 2016 02:00:27 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LYONNE WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
HILL CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
16-CV-4140
MERIT REVIEW OPINION ON AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff filed this case pro se from Hill Correctional Center.
On September 12, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint
for failure to state a claim, with leave to file an amended complaint.
The Court assumes familiarity with that Order.
Plaintiff has filed his amended complaint, but the Court will
first address Plaintiff’s motion for appointed counsel (5). Plaintiff
has not demonstrated that he has made reasonable efforts to obtain
counsel on his own, which is a prerequisite to considering the
merits of the motion. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 653 (7th Cir.
2007). However, the Court notes that Plaintiff also appears
competent to proceed pro se in light of the nature of his claims.
Page 1 of 5
Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). He has adequately
explained what happened and why he thinks Defendants should be
liable.
The Court has reviewed the amended complaint, which makes
the same allegations as the original complaint. Plaintiff names
different defendants—defendants with medical training—but he still
alleges that the defendants did not provide his ill cellmate with
medical treatment. The cellmate died in the cell, and Plaintiff
discovered the dead body when he entered the cell. Plaintiff was
put in segregation pending an investigation, even though prison
officials allegedly knew that Plaintiff had nothing to do with his
cellmate’s death. Plaintiff alleges that he remains traumatized,
suffering anxiety attacks and hallucinations.
The Court acknowledges that this was traumatic for Plaintiff,
but still no plausible inference of deliberate indifference arises
against any defendants. No plausible inference arises that any of
the defendants were aware of a substantial risk of harm to
Plaintiff’s mental health or that they ignored such a risk. As
explained in the prior order, the medical staff may have been
deliberately different to the cellmate’s medical needs, but Plaintiff
Page 2 of 5
cannot pursue claims on the cellmate’s behalf. Nor do Plaintiff’s
allegations suggest that he is currently being denied necessary
mental health treatment or that he was denied mental health
treatment after the incident.
In sum, Plaintiff still does not state a federal claim for relief.
Accordingly, this case will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A.
IT IS ORDERED:
1)
Plaintiff's motion for appointed counsel is denied (5).
2)
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is
denied as unnecessary (10). Plaintiff is already proceeding in forma
pauperis.
3)
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint
is granted (11).
4) Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a federal claim.
Accordingly, this action is dismissed for failure to state a claim and
a strike is assessed against Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g).
Page 3 of 5
5)
Plaintiff must still pay the full filing fee of $350 even
though his case has been dismissed. The agency having custody of
Plaintiff shall continue to make monthly payments to the Clerk of
Court, as directed in the Court's prior order.
6)
If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he must file a
notice of appeal with this Court within 30 days of the entry of
judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). A motion for leave to appeal in
forma pauperis should set forth the issues Plaintiff plans to present
on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If Plaintiff does choose
to appeal, he will be liable for the $505 appellate filing fee
irrespective of the outcome of the appeal.
7)
The clerk is directed to separately docket the
amended complaint.
8)
The clerk is directed to record Plaintiff's strike in the
three-strike log.
9)
The clerk is directed to enter judgment.
ENTERED: 12/23/2016
FOR THE COURT:
Page 4 of 5
_s/Joe Billy McDade
JOE BILLY MCDADE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 5 of 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?