Hampton v. St. Clair County Jail et al

Filing 59

ORDER finding as moot 35 Motion for Writ of Mandamus. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 8/24/2010. (hbs)

Hampton v. St. Clair County Jail et al

Doc. 59

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PERNELL L. HAMPTON, Plaintiff, v. DOCTOR AMPADU, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Pernell L. Hampton's pro se Motion for Writ of Mandamus filed on February 1, 2010 (Doc. 35). For the reasons set forth below, this motion is found to be MOOT. Plaintiff filed a complaint in this matter under 42 U.S.C.§1983 alleging that officials at the St. Clair County Jail acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs of sickle cell disease and back pain by failing to provide him with proper medical treatment in violation of the constitution (Doc. 1). On December 29, 2009, the Court appointed Attorney Peter A. Corsale to represent Plaintiff in this action (Doc. 35). Plaintiff filed the instant motion on February 1, 2010 (Doc. 35), asking the Court to order the Illinois Department of Corrections to transport him to an outside hospital for medical treatment by a hematologist. He states that he is now incarcerated at the East Moline Correctional Center, and the doctors there are not providing him with adequate medical treatment. At the time Plaintiff filed this motion, he was represented by counsel. Thus, it was improper for Plaintiff to file this pro se motion. Once Plaintiff is represented by counsel, all contact with the Court must be through his attorney. Accordingly, the pro se motion is MOOT. Even if the Court were to consider the merits of the motion, it would have to be denied. The

Case No. 3:08-cv-389-DRH-DGW

Dockets.Justia.com

East Moline Correctional Center is not a defendant in this action, nor are any officials at that facility. If Plaintiff wishes the Court to address what he believes are unconstitutional actions by individuals at East Moline Correctional Center, he will have to file a separate lawsuit naming those individuals as defendants. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's pro se Motion for Writ of Mandamus (Doc. 35) is found to be MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 24, 2010 s/ Donald G. Wilkerson DONALD G. WILKERSON United States Magistrate Judge

2