McCorkle v. Brookhart et al

Filing 16

Order for Service of Process upon C/O Smith. Count 1 shall proceed against C/O Smith. Count 2 against Brookhart and claims against Weaver are DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court DENIES 14 MOTION for status filed by Arnez McCorkle, 15 MOTION for status filed by Arnez McCorkle. Motion to Copy 13 is GRANTED and the Clerk is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 11/18/2021. (anp)

Case 3:20-cv-00272-DWD Document 16 Filed 11/18/21 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #51

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ARNEZ McCORKLE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DR. BROOKHART, C/O SMITH, and
OFFICER WEAVER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 20-cv-272-DWD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Arnez McCorkle, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”) who is currently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center, brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights while at
Lawrence Correctional Center (“Lawrence”). In his Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff alleges
Smith used excessive force and he was denied care for his injuries. He asserts claims
against the defendants under the Eighth Amendment.
This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, the Court is required to screen
prisoner complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any
portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law is
immune from such relief must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
1

Case 3:20-cv-00272-DWD Document 16 Filed 11/18/21 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #52

The Complaint
McCorkle makes the following allegations in the Complaint (Doc. 1): On October
31, 2019, Correctional Officer Smith slammed the cell door on McCorkle’s right foot
causing a deep gash (Doc. 1, p. 6). McCorkle contends that he did nothing to warrant the
attack and he did not receive a disciplinary ticket for the event. He was taken to the
healthcare unit and provided treatment (Id.). He saw doctor Pittman the next day and
was issued crutches for his injured foot (Id.).
On November 2, 2019 while walking down the stairs with his crutches, he was
bumped by another inmate and fell down the stairs. The fall caused him to have a seizure
and he passed out (Id.). He was taken to an outside hospital, but upon his return was
placed in segregation because “Internal Affairs” believed he staged the event (Id. at p. 7).
From November 3, 2019 until November 7, 2019, while in segregation, he was denied pain
medication and care for his injured right foot (Id.). He wrote an emergency grievance, but
Brookhart told him it was not an emergency and directed him to resubmit the grievance
in the ordinary course (Id.).
Discussion
Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide
the pro se action into the following two counts:
Count 1:

Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against C/O Smith
for slamming McCorkle’s foot in the cell door.

Count 2:

Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Brookhart for delaying treatment for McCorkle’s injury
while in segregation.

2

Case 3:20-cv-00272-DWD Document 16 Filed 11/18/21 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #53

The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders,
unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. Any other claim that is
mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be considered
dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under the Twombly pleading
standard. 1
McCorkle states a viable claim for excessive force against Smith in Count 1. See
DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 619 (7th Cir. 2000). He fails, however, to state a claim for
deliberate indifference against Brookhart in Count 2. His Complaint alleges that he wrote
an emergency grievance to Brookhart about his lack of care while in segregation but that
she returned the grievance, finding the issue not an emergency, and directed him to file
the grievance in the normal fashion. The mishandling or denying of grievances by those
not personally involved in the underlying constitutional violation does not state a claim.
Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he alleged mishandling of [a
prisoner’s] grievance by persons who otherwise did not cause or participate in the
underlying conduct states no claim.”); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609-10 (7th Cir. 2007).
Here, Brookhart simply directed McCorkle to submit his grievance through the normal
grievance course and found that it was not an emergency. There is no indication that she
denied him medical care while in segregation. Thus, Count 2 is DISMISSED without
prejudice.

See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (an action fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”).

1

3

Case 3:20-cv-00272-DWD Document 16 Filed 11/18/21 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #54

Further, McCorkle identifies Weaver as a defendant in the caption of the case but
does not include any allegations against him in the statement of claim. He refers to
“Internal Affairs” in general, but there are no allegations that Weaver personally denied
him access to medical care while in segregation or was aware that he was being denied
care. As such, Weaver is also DISMISSED without prejudice.
Pending Motions
McCorkle filed two motions for status (Docs. 14 and 15) regarding the status of the
Court’s merit review. As the Court has now conducted its review of McCorkle’s claims,
those motions are DENIED as moot. To the extent McCorkle again seeks counsel (Doc.
15), his request for counsel is DENIED at this time. Now that the case has passed
threshold review, the Court will serve Defendant Smith. Thus, there is nothing currently
pending that would require counsel. Once Smith files an Answer, the Court will enter a
scheduling order. If at that time, McCorkle experiences difficulties conducting discovery
on his own, he may again seek counsel.
Finally, McCorkle’s motion for a copy of the docket sheet (Doc. 13) is GRANTED
and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send McCorkle a copy of the current docket.
Disposition
For the reasons stated above, Count 1 shall proceed against C/O Smith. Count 2
against Brookhart as well as any potential claims against Officer Weaver are DISMISSED
without prejudice.
The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendant C/O Smith: (1) Form 5 (Notice of
a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service
4

Case 3:20-cv-00272-DWD Document 16 Filed 11/18/21 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #55

of Summons). The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail these forms, a copy of the Complaint, and
this Memorandum and Order to the defendant’s place of employment as identified by
Plaintiff. If the defendant fails to sign and return the Waiver of Service of Summons (Form
6) to the Clerk within 30 days from the date the forms were sent, the Clerk shall take
appropriate steps to effect formal service on the defendant, and the Court will require the
defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
If the defendant can no longer be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff,
the employer shall furnish the Clerk with the defendant’s current work address, or, if not
known, defendant’s last-known address. This information shall be used only for sending
the forms as directed above or for formally effecting service. Any documentation of the
address shall be retained only by the Clerk. Address information shall not be maintained
in the court file or disclosed by the Clerk.
Defendant is ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the
Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(g).
Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 244, Defendants need only respond to the issues
stated in this Merit Review Order.
If judgment is rendered against Plaintiff, and the judgment includes the payment
of costs under Section 1915, Plaintiff will be required to pay the full amount of the costs,
regardless of whether his application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(f)(2)(A).

5

Case 3:20-cv-00272-DWD Document 16 Filed 11/18/21 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #56

Finally, Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the
Clerk of Court and each opposing party informed of any change in his address; the Court
will not independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not
later than 7 days after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply with
this order will cause a delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in
dismissal of this action for want of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 18, 2021

__________________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
U.S. District Judge

6

Case 3:20-cv-00272-DWD Document 16 Filed 11/18/21 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #57

Notice to Plaintiff
The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the appropriate defendants of
your lawsuit and serve them with a copy of your complaint. After service has been
achieved, the defendants will enter their appearance and file an Answer to the complaint.
It will likely take at least 60 days from the date of this Order to receive the defendants’
Answers, but it is entirely possible that it will take 90 days or more. When all of the
defendants have filed Answers, the Court will enter a Scheduling Order containing
important information on deadlines, discovery, and procedures. Plaintiff is advised to
wait until counsel has appeared for the defendants before filing any motions, to give the
defendants notice and an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed before
defendants’ counsel has filed an appearance will generally be denied as premature.
Plaintiff need not submit any evidence to the Court at his time, unless otherwise directed
by the Court.
The Court wishes to remind the Plaintiff that litigation is often viewed a series of
hurdles that the Plaintiff must clear to get to another hurdle. Initial screening is such a
hurdle, but it is a very low one for the Plaintiff to clear. As noted above, surviving initial
screening only requires the bare statement of a claim that, if proven, could entitle Plaintiff
to some relief. At trial, they will need to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the
facts alleged actually occurred and that those facts satisfy the legal requirements for
recovery. Trial is the highest and most difficult of hurdles for any Plaintiff to clear.

7