Mason v. Hardy et al

Filing 4

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 6/26/2013: Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [# 3 ] is granted. The Court authorizes and orders Lincoln Correctional Center trust officials to deduct  6;21.51 from Plaintiff's account, and to continue making monthly deductions in accordance with this order. The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the inmate trust accounts office at Lincoln Correctional Center. The Clerk shall issue summ onses to Defendants Hardy, Chanel, and Napal, and the U.S. Marshal is directed to serve them. The Clerk is further directed to send Plaintiff a Magistrate Judge Consent Form, Instructions for Submitting Documents, and a copy of this order. Mailed notice(vcf, )

Order Form (01/2005)

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

Robert M. Dow, Jr.

CASE NUMBER

13 C 4475

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

6/26/13

John Mason (#M-18525) v. Marcus Hardy, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [#3] is granted. The Court authorizes and orders Lincoln
Correctional Center trust officials to deduct $21.51 from Plaintiff’s account, and to continue making monthly deductions
in accordance with this order. The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the inmate trust accounts office at Lincoln
Correctional Center. The Clerk shall issue summonses to Defendants Hardy, Chanel, and Napal, and the U.S. Marshal is
directed to serve them. The Clerk is further directed to send Plaintiff a Magistrate Judge Consent Form, Instructions for
Submitting Documents, and a copy of this order.

O [For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
Plaintiff, John Mason, presently in state custody at Lincoln Correctional Center, has brought this pro se civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated his rights by subjecting him
to deliberate indifference to a serious medical condition. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges beginning on January
7, 2011, and continuing for the entire time he was incarcerated at Stateville Correctional Center, he was not
provided his medication for a seizure disorder. Plaintiff alleges that although he complained to Defendants Chanel,
Napal, Hardy, and an unnamed correctional counselor, he never received adequate medical treatment.
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1),
the plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $21.51. The supervisor of inmate trust accounts at Lincoln
Correctional Center is authorized and ordered to collect, when funds exist, the partial filing fee from Plaintiff’s trust
fund account and pay it directly to the Clerk of Court. After payment of the initial partial filing fee, the trust fund
officer at Plaintiff’s place of confinement is directed to collect monthly payments from Plaintiff’s trust fund account
in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding month’s income credited to the account. Monthly payments collected
from Plaintiff’s trust fund account shall be forwarded to the Clerk of Court each time the amount in the account
exceeds $10 until the full $400 filing fee is paid. All payments shall be sent to the Clerk, United States District
Court, 219 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, Illinois 60604, attn: Cashier’s Desk, 20th Floor, and shall clearly identify
Plaintiff’s name and the case number assigned to this action. The Lincoln inmate trust account office shall notify
transferee authorities of any outstanding balance in the event Plaintiff is transferred from the jail to another
correctional facility.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to conduct a prompt threshold review of the complaint.
Here, accepting Plaintiff’s factual allegations as true, the Court finds that the complaint states a plausible claim
under the Civil Rights Act against Defendants Hardy, Chanel, and Napal (hereinafter, “Defendants”) for
deliberate indifference to a serious medical condition. Davis v. Carter, 453 F.3d 686, 696 (7th Cir. 2006).
However, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the Health Care Unit Director, and has inadequately
identified the counselor against whom he pleads. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” in order to “ ‘give the defendant fair
(CONTINUED)
AWL

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT (continued)
notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’ ” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, (1957)). To satisfy the notice pleading requirements
of FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2), Plaintiff need only state his legal claim and provide “some indication . . . of time and
place.” Thompson v. Washington, 362 F.3d 969, 970-71 (7th Cir. 2004). It is a plaintiff’s obligation to provide
the grounds of his entitlement to relief which requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation
of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544, 555 (citations omitted). While
Plaintiff names the IDOC Health Care Unit Director in the caption of his complaint, he makes no claim against him
or her the body of his complaint. Consequently, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed as to the Health Care Unit
Administrator.
Additionally, Plaintiff names a counselor in his complaint, but fails to adequately identify the counselor for
purposes of serving him with the complaint. The Court construes this Defendant as it would a John Doe Defendant.
Plaintiff must conduct discovery as soon as possible to obtain the names of the counselor in question. The statute
of limitations for Section 1983 actions filed in Illinois is two years. See 735 ILCS § 5/13-202; Henderson v.
Bolanda, 253 F.3d 928, 931 (7th Cir. 2001), citing Ashafa v. City of Chicago, 146 F.3d 459, 462 (7th Cir. 1998).
In this circuit, a plaintiff cannot invoke the relation back principles of Rule 15(c) to replace John Doe Defendants
with named Defendants after the statute of limitations has expired. See Worthington v. Wilson, 8 F.3d 1253,
1256-57 (7th Cir. 1993); see also Wood v. Worachek, 618 F.2d 1225, 1230 (7th Cir. 1980). Thus, once Defendants
have filed their appearance and have answered, Plaintiff should serve discovery on counsel for Defendants
calculated to identify the counselor, so Plaintiff can amend his complaint in a timely fashion.
The Clerk shall issue summonses forthwith to Defendants Hardy, Chanel, and Napal, and send Plaintiff a
Magistrate Judge Consent Form and Instructions for Submitting Documents along with a copy of this order.
The United States Marshals Service is appointed to serve Defendants. Any service forms necessary for
Plaintiff to complete will be sent by the Marshal as appropriate to serve Defendants with process. The U.S. Marshal
is directed to make all reasonable efforts to serve Defendants. With respect to former correctional employees who
no longer can be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff, the Illinois Department of Corrections shall
furnish the Marshal with 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 mail a request for waiver of service to Defendants in the manner prescribed
by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2) before attempting personal service.
Plaintiff is instructed to file all future papers concerning this action with the Clerk of Court in care of the
Prisoner Correspondent. Plaintiff must provide the original plus a judge’s copy of every document filed. In
addition, Plaintiff must send an exact copy of any Court filing to Defendants [or to defense counsel, once an
attorney has entered an appearance on their behalf]. Every document filed 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 Plaintiff.

Page 2 of 2