Boyce v. Godinez et al

Filing 40

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 6/3/2013: On the court's own motion, the plaintiff's excessive force claim against defendant Nash is dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). Dismissal is without pr ejudice to pursuing that claim in a separate lawsuit. The clerk is directed to: (1) file the amended complaint [# 38 ]; (2) terminate all defendants currently listed on the court's docket pursuant to the amended complaint and Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 5; (3) add Jonathan Kelly, Nurse Smith, and Doctor Kartan as defendants; (4) issue summonses for service on those three defendants by the U.S. Marshal; and (5) send the plaintiff a Magistrate Judge Consent Form and Instructions for Submitting Docum ents along with a copy of this order. The plaintiff's motion to alter or amend judgment [# 37 ] is denied. The plaintiff's renewed motion for attorney assistance [# 39 ] is likewise denied. (For further details see Written Opinion). Mailed notice. (et, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

HARRY D. LEINENWEBER

CASE NUMBER

12 C 3840

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

6/3/2013

Anthony Boyce (#R-52162) vs. Salvador Godinez, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

On the court’s own motion, the plaintiff’s excessive force claim against defendant Nash is dismissed pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). Dismissal is without prejudice to pursuing that claim in a separate lawsuit. The clerk
is directed to: (1) file the amended complaint [#38]; (2) terminate all defendants currently listed on the court’s
docket pursuant to the amended complaint and Fed. R. Civ. P. 15; (3) add Jonathan Kelly, Nurse Smith, and
Doctor Kartan as defendants; (4) issue summonses for service on those three defendants by the U.S. Marshal; and
(5) send the plaintiff a Magistrate Judge Consent Form and Instructions for Submitting Documents along with
a copy of this order. The plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend judgment [#37] is denied. The plaintiff’s renewed
motion for attorney assistance [#39] is likewise denied.
O

Docketing to mail notices.

[For further details see text below.]

STATEMENT
The plaintiff, an Illinois state prisoner, has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The plaintiff claims that the defendants, health care providers at the Stateville Correctional Center,
violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights by compelling him to take psychotropic medications against his will.
The plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend judgment is denied. By Minute Order of April 26, 2013, the court
directed the plaintiff to submit an amended complaint limited to a single claim and naming as defendants those
individuals who were personally and directly responsible for his forced medication. See George v. Smith, 507
F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007); Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). No final judgment has been entered. For the reasons set
forth in its prior order, the court remains satisfied that the other claims belong in separate lawsuits.
The plaintiff has submitted an amended complaint, as directed. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court is
required to conduct a prompt threshold review of the amended complaint. Here, accepting the plaintiff’s
allegations as true, the court finds that the amended complaint articulates a colorable federal cause of action. The
treatment of a prisoner against his will implicates substantive due process concerns. See, e.g., Washington v.
Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221-22 (1990); see also Russell v. Richards, 384 F.3d 444, 450 (7th Cir. 2004). The court
(CONTINUED)
mjm

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT (continued)
is particularly concerned that the defendants allegedly ignored the plaintiff’s that the forced medication caused such
side effects as nausea, blurred vision, migraines, and memory loss. The subjective element of deliberate
indifference encompasses conduct such as the refusal to treat a prisoner’s chronic pain and other symptoms. See,
e.g., Jones v. Simek, 193 F.3d 485, 490 (7th Cir. 1999). Defendants Kelly, Smith, and Kartan must respond to the
plaintiff’s allegations.
However, the plaintiff’s claim that defendant Nash acted unprofessionally and intentionally handcuffed his
wrists too tightly is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). As the court previously advised
the plaintiff, “[u]nrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits....” George, 507 F.3d at 607.
The plaintiff must file a separate lawsuit if he wishes to sue Sergeant Nash for using excessive force against him.
The clerk shall issue summonses forthwith. The United States Marshals Service is appointed to serve
defendants Kelly, Smith, and Kartan. Any service forms necessary for the plaintiff to complete will be sent by the
Marshal as appropriate to serve the defendants with process. The U.S. Marshal is directed to make all reasonable
efforts to serve the defendants. If any defendant can no longer be found at the work address provided by the
plaintiff, the Illinois Department of Corrections and/or Wexford Health Sources, Inc., shall furnish the Marshal with
the defendant’s last-known address. The information shall be used only for purposes of effectuating service [or
for proof of service, should a dispute arise] and any documentation of the address shall be retained only by the
Marshal. Address information shall not be maintained in the court file, nor disclosed by the Marshal. The Marshal
is authorized to send a request for waiver of service to the defendants in the manner prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(d)(2) before attempting personal service.
The plaintiff is instructed to file all future papers concerning this action with the Clerk of Court in care of
the Prisoner Correspondent. The plaintiff must provide the court with the original plus a complete judge’s copy,
including any exhibits, of every document filed. In addition, the plaintiff must send an exact copy of any court
filing to the defendants [or to defense counsel, once an attorney has entered an appearance on behalf of the
defendants]. Every document filed with the court must include a certificate of service stating to whom exact copies
were mailed and the date of mailing. Any paper that is sent directly to the judge or that otherwise fails to comply
with these instructions may be disregarded by the court or returned to the plaintiff.
Finally, the plaintiff’s renewed motion for attorney assistance is denied. See Minute Orders of February
22, 2013, and April 26, 2013. In view of the plaintiff’s conflicts with prior pro bono counsel, he must proceed
without the benefit of court-recruited attorney representation.

Page 2 of 2