|

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Jud; itt if Othe
ine Magistrate udge Charles R. Norgle “Than Assigned Judge
=
CASE NUMBER 12 C 2553 DATE J-/, — / a
t
CASE Eugene Wright (#2010-1228082) vs. Tom Dart
TITLE
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiff may proceed with his amended complaint against Tom Dart and Jane Doe. The John Doe Defendant
is dismissed. The clerk shall issue summons for service of the amended complaint [6] on Tom Dart, but not Jane
Doe until her identity is known. Once an attorney enters an appearance for Dart, Plaintiff is directed to conduct
discovery to learn the name of the Jane Doe Defendant. His failure to do send such discovery within 90 days after
an attorney enters an appearance may result in the dismissal of the Jane Doe Defendant. The clerk shall send
Plaintiff instructions for filing documents in this Court, along with a Magistrate Judge Consent Forrp.

Keting to mail notices.

WM For further details see text below.] Lint fbn

STATEMENT

Plaintiff Eugene Wright, incarcerated at the Cook County Jail, has filed an amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint in accordance with this court’s May 1, 2012, order. Plaintiffnames Tom Dart, John Doe, and Jane Doe
as Defendants. Plaintiff alleges the following. On December I 1, 2011, he was involved in an accident while riding
ona Cook County Jail bus driven by an officer he refers to as John Doe. On December 21, 2012, he was examined
by a doctor (referred to as Jane Doe) at Cermak Health Services. The doctor allegedly simply prescribed pain
medication but performed no examination. After several months of complaining of pain and requesting medical
attention, Plaintiff was again seen at Cermak but was simply told that he had whiplash without an examination being
conducted. In April 2012, after more complaints of pain, Plaintiff received an examination and was then scheduled
for a “spine thoracic ap/lat.” Plaintiff seeks to sue the driver for his negligent operation of the bus and the doctor
for her failure to properly examine Plaintiff. He names Tom Dart as a Defendant to identify the Doe Defendants.

The court having conducted its preliminary review of the amended complaint, Plaintiff may proceed with
his claim against the Jane Doe physician. See Roe v. Elyea, 631 F.3d 843, 857-58 (7th Cir. 2011) (setting out the
standard for a claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need). Plaintiff, however, cannot proceed in this
case with his claim against the John Doe driver. Such a claim is nota federal one that can be brought under § 1983.
Hill y. Shobe, 93 F.3d 418, 421 (7th Cir. 1996); see also Blakemore v. Dart, No. 12-1713, 2012 WL 1378676 at
*2 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 20, 2012) (Kennelly, J.) (a deliberate indifference claim against a driver of a vehicle
transporting prisoners requires some form of recklessness, i.e., that the driver had actual knowledge that the
manner he drove the vehicle posed a serious risk of harm and that he consciously disregarded that risk). Plaintiff
does not allege such reckless behavior. Even if he intended to bring this claim as a pendent state-law negligence
claim, this claim is not so related to the medical claim that they must be brought in the same suit. George v.
Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different
suits”); see also City of Chicago v. Intern. College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 172-73 (1997) (pendent

jurisdiction is a matter of discretion).

12C2553 Eugene Wright (#2010-1228082) vs. Tom Dart Page | of 2



STATEMENT

Accordingly, Plaintiff may proceed with his claim against Jane Doe. Tom Dart shall remain as Defendant
in order to identify Jane Doe. Once an attorney enters an appearance for Dart, Plaintiff should forward discovery
(written questions) to the attorney to learn the name of Jane Doe. Once Plaintiff knows her name, he may file
a motion to substitute her name for Jane Doe in the amended complaint. Plaintiff's failure to forward discovery
within 90 days of an attorney for Dart entering an appearance may be grounds for dismissal of the claim against
Jane Doe and this case.

The clerk shall issue summons for service of the complaint on Tom Dart through the U.S. Marshal. Any
service forms necessary for Plaintiff to complete will be sent by the Marshal. Plaintiffs failure to return forms may
| result in the dismissal of Dart as a Defendant. The Marshal is directed to make all reasonable efforts to serve the
complaint. The Marshal may mail a request for waiver of service to Dart pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2). If
unable to obtain a waiver, the Marshal shall attempt personal service.

Plaintiff must file all future papers concerning this action with the clerk of court in care of Prisoner
Correspondent. Plaintiff must provide the court with the original plus a judge’s copy, including exhibits, of every
document filed. Copies of court filings must be sent to Defendants or their attorney, if one has entered an
appearance. All court filings must include a certificate of service stating to whom 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 and/or returned to Plaintiff.

12C2553 Eugene Wright (#2010-1228082) vs. Tom Dart Page 2 of 2