Thornton v. Lashbrook et al

Filing 132

ORDER GRANTING 124 MOTION for Leave to File filed by Charles E. Thornton. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file Plaintiffs proposed revised Amended Complaint as submitted on July 26, 2018 as the Fourth Amended Complaint. Defendants may, but are not required to, file an Answer to Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 8/14/2018. (ely)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

CHARLES E. THORNTON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JACQUELINE LASHBROOK, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:17-CV-761-DRH-RJD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Fourth Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint
(Doc. 124). Defendants did not file a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion. Plaintiff Charles E.
Thornton is an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections at Menard
Correctional Center. On July 20, 2017, Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. On May 10, 2018, Plaintiff was allowed to
file a Third Amended Complaint proceeding on the following counts:
Count 1 -

Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs claim against
Nurse Walls, Doctor Trost, Lee Gregson, Juanita House, Reva Engelage,
Shelby Dunn, Cassandra Norton, Martha Oakley, Tara Chadderton, and
Warden Lashbrook for refusing to provide Plaintiff’s prescription medication
(Neurontin) from March 7-29, 2017.

Count 2 -

Wexford Health Sources had an unconstitutional policy or custom that
prevented Plaintiff from receiving his prescription refill for Neurontin from
March 7-29, 2017, in violation of the Eight Amendment.

Plaintiff seeks to file an amended complaint to make the following revisions: (1) exclude
the phrase “on information and belief” in naming the defendants, (2) add one case to the list of
previous lawsuits, (3) make grammatical corrections, and (4) include a “Declaration of
Verification.”

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) states, “a party may amend the party’s pleading
only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given
when justice so requires.” “Reasons for finding that leave should not be granted include undue
delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies
by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of
allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.” Airborne Beepers & Video, Inc. v.
AT & T Mobility LLC, 499 F.3d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 2007).
Plaintiff seeks to add a Declaration of Verification to his Complaint. Plaintiff will be
granted leave to file his proposed Complaint to include the Declaration. Plaintiff’s proposed
revisions, however, do not change the substance of Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff’s grammatical changes and excluding the phrase “on information and belief” are not
necessary and do not change the substance. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks to add one case, (17-cv1296 filed in the Southern District of Illinois) to the list of previously filed lawsuits listed in his
Third Amended Complaint. The addition of 17-cv-1296 is not necessary as that case was filed
four months after this case. Because, Plaintiff’s revisions do not change the substance of his
Third Amended Complaint, Defendants may, but are not required to, file an Answer to Plaintiff’s
Fourth Amended Complaint.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Fourth Amended
Complaint (Doc. 124) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file Plaintiff’s
proposed revised Amended Complaint as submitted on July 26, 2018 as the Fourth Amended
Complaint.

Defendants may, but are not required to, file an Answer to Plaintiff’s Fourth

Amended Complaint.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 14, 2018

s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge

3