Carter v. Baldwin et al, No. 4:2018cv04151 - Document 9 (C.D. Ill. 2018)
Court Description: MERIT REVIEW OPINION: This case proceeds. Plaintiffs motion for the Court to appoint counsel is denied 4 . Plaintiff's motion for status is moot 6 . The clerk is directed to terminate Defendants Baldwin, Dorethy, and Cummings. The clerk is d irected to enter the standard order granting Plaintiff's in forma pauperis petition and assessing an initial partial filing fee, if not already done, and to attempt service on Defendants pursuant to the standard procedures. The Clerk is directed to enter the standard qualifiedprotective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portabilityand Accountability Act. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 10/25/2018. (SKN, ilcd)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Carter v. Baldwin et al Doc. 9 E-FILED Thursday, 25 October, 2018 04:31:28 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS AUSTIN CARTER, Plaintiff, v. JOHN BALDWIN, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 18-CV-4151 MERIT REVIEW OPINION SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge. Plaintiff proceeds pro se from his incarceration in Pinckneyville Correctional Center. His Complaint is before the Court for a merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This section requires the Court to identify cognizable claims stated by the Complaint or dismiss claims that are not cognizable.1 In reviewing the complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in Plaintiff's favor and taking Plaintiff’s pro se status into account. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 A prisoner who has had three prior actions dismissed for failure to state a claim or as frivolous or malicious can no longer proceed in forma pauperis unless the prisoner is under “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 1 Page 1 of 8 Dockets.Justia.com (7th Cir. 2013). However, conclusory statements and labels are insufficient. Enough facts must be provided to "'state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'" Alexander v. U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(quoted cite omitted). Plaintiff alleges that, in March 2018, Defendant Lieutenant Cropp assaulted Plaintiff by slamming Plaintiff into a wall, fracturing Plaintiff’s clavicle. This allegation state a plausible Eighth Amendment claim for excessive force against Lieutenant Cropp. According to the grievance response attached to the Complaint, Lieutenant Cropp maintains that Plaintiff broke his own clavicle by repeatedly slamming his own body into a cell door. (Compl. p. 13.) That dispute cannot be resolved at this stage. Plaintiff’s allegations state no claim against Defendant Baldwin, who is the IDOC Director, or Defendant Dorethy, who is the Warden. They cannot be liable for their employees’ constitutional violations just because they are in charge. Matthews v. City of East St. Louis, 675 F.3d 703, 708 (7th Cir. 2012)(“To show personal involvement, the supervisor must ‘know about the conduct and facilitate it, approve it, condone it, or turn a blind eye for fear of what they might see.’”)(quoted cite omitted); Chavez v. Illinois State Page 2 of 8 Police, 251 F.3d 612, 651 (7th Cir. 2001)(no respondeat superior liability under § 1983). Plaintiff alleges generally that violence is a problem at Hill, but that allegation is too conclusory to state a claim against the Warden and the IDOC Director. On a separate matter, an Officer Cummings has been listed as a Defendant, but Plaintiff makes no allegations against Officer Cummings in his complaint. A grievance attached to the complaint reflects that Plaintiff accused Officer Cummings of stepping on Plaintiff’s fingers in 2017. To the extent Plaintiff is trying to pursue a claim against Officer Cummings, that claim would not be properly joined with Plaintiff’s claim against Lieutenant Cropp. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1) Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds that Plaintiff states an Eighth Amendment claim for excessive force against Defendant Cropp. This case proceeds solely on the claims identified in this paragraph. Any additional claims shall not be included in the case, except at the Court’s discretion on motion by a party for good cause shown or pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Page 3 of 8 2) Defendants Baldwin, Dorethy, and Cummings are dismissed without prejudice. 3) This case is now in the process of service. Plaintiff is advised to wait until counsel has appeared for Defendants before filing any motions, in order to give 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 this time, unless otherwise directed by the Court. 4) The Court will attempt service on Defendants by mailing each Defendant a waiver of service. Defendants have 60 days from the date the waiver is sent to file an Answer. If Defendants have not filed Answers or appeared through counsel within 90 days of the entry of this order, Plaintiff may file a motion requesting the status of service. After Defendants have been served, the Court will enter an order setting discovery and dispositive motion deadlines. 5) With respect to a Defendant who no longer works at the address provided by Plaintiff, the entity for whom that Defendant worked while at that address shall provide to the Clerk said Defendant's current work address, or, if not known, said Page 4 of 8 Defendant's forwarding address. This information shall be used only for effectuating service. Documentation of forwarding addresses shall be retained only by the Clerk and shall not be maintained in the public docket nor disclosed by the Clerk. 6) Defendants shall file an answer within 60 days of the date the waiver is sent by the Clerk. A motion to dismiss is not an answer. The answer should include all defenses appropriate under the Federal Rules. The answer and subsequent pleadings shall be to the issues and claims stated in this Opinion. In general, an answer sets forth Defendants' positions. The Court does not rule on the merits of those positions unless and until a motion is filed by Defendants. Therefore, no response to the answer is necessary or will be considered. 7) This District uses electronic filing, which means that, after Defense counsel has filed an appearance, Defense counsel will automatically receive electronic notice of any motion or other paper filed by Plaintiff with the Clerk. Plaintiff does not need to mail to Defense counsel copies of motions and other papers that Plaintiff has filed with the Clerk. However, this does not apply to discovery requests and responses. Discovery requests and responses are not Page 5 of 8 filed with the Clerk. Plaintiff must mail his discovery requests and responses directly to Defendants' counsel. Discovery requests or responses sent to the Clerk will be returned unfiled, unless they are attached to and the subject of a motion to compel. Discovery does not begin until Defense counsel has filed an appearance and the Court has entered a scheduling order, which will explain the discovery process in more detail. 8) Counsel for Defendants is hereby granted leave to depose Plaintiff at his place of confinement. Counsel for Defendants shall arrange the time for the deposition. 9) Plaintiff shall immediately notify the Court, in writing, of any change in his mailing address and telephone number. Plaintiff's failure to notify the Court of a change in mailing address or phone number will result in dismissal of this lawsuit, with prejudice. 10) If a Defendants fails to sign and return a waiver of service to the clerk within 30 days after the waiver is sent, the Court will take appropriate steps to effect formal service through the U.S. Marshal's service on that Defendant and will require that Defendant Page 6 of 8 to pay the full costs of formal service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2). 11) Within 10 days of receiving from Defendants' counsel an authorization to release medical records, Plaintiff is directed to sign and return the authorization to Defendants' counsel. 12) Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to appoint counsel is denied (4), with leave to renew after Plaintiff demonstrates that he has made reasonable efforts to find counsel on his own. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). This typically requires writing to several lawyers and attaching the responses. Plaintiff asserts that he has written lawyers, but Plaintiff attaches no responses. If Plaintiff renews his motion, he should set forth how far he has gone in school, any jobs he has held inside and outside of prison, any classes he has taken in prison, and any prior litigation experience he has. 13) Plaintiff’s motion for status is moot. (d/e 6.) 14) The clerk is directed to terminate Defendants Baldwin, Dorethy, and Cummings. 15) The clerk is directed to enter the standard order granting Plaintiff's in forma pauperis petition and assessing an Page 7 of 8 initial partial filing fee, if not already done, and to attempt service on Defendants pursuant to the standard procedures. 16) The Clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. ENTERED: 10/25/2018 FOR THE COURT: s/Sue E. Myerscough SUE E. MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 8 of 8
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
