Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Matthew F. Kennelly Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 3603 DATE June 12, 2012

CASE TITLE Shuntay Shearer (#2011-0622038) vs. Hinton, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Having learned that Plaintiff was recently discharged from custody, the Court vacates the appointment of counsel

in its 6/4/12 order. TheCourt may revisit whether to appoint counsel if Plaintiffsubmits an amended complaint that

can proceed forward. Attorney Harold Rosen need not enter an appearance or file any pleadings in this case at this

time. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff submitting an amended complaint within 30 days

ofthe date ofthis order. Plaintiffmust also submit,within 30 days, an updated in forma pauperis(“IFP”) application

so the Court can assess his current ability to pay the filing fee. Hisfailure to complywith either directive will result

in dismissal of this case. The Clerk is directed to send an amended complaint form and IFP application, along with

a copy of this order and theCourt’s 6/4/12, order[4], to 225 Custer, Apt. 1E, Evanston, IL 60202. The clerk is also

directed to send a copy of this order to Attorney Harold Rosen. 

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff Shuntay Shearer filed this lawsuit in May 2012. He alleges that he received inadequate dental

care for a broken tooth from June 2011 until he was released from Cook County Jail on June 1, 2012. When the

Court prepared its prior order, Plaintiff was still incarcerated. Believing that Plaintiff was still not receiving

dental care at the Jail, the Court appointed counsel largely to attempt to secure adequate dental attention for his

condition. Because Plaintiff has been released, his need for dental care as a incarcerated person no longer

exists. Upon further review of his complaint, the Court believes that Plaintiff should be able to put together an

amended complaint on his own. Accordingly, the Court strikes its appointment of counsel and directs Plaintiff

to submit an amended complaint in accordance with this order and the 6/4/12 order.

As noted in the Court’s previous order, Plaintiff alleges that, on June 30, 2011, he requested to see a

dentist for a broken tooth; he was given pain medication but no appointment; he eventually saw a dentist in

October 2011 after he filed several grievances; but the dentist could not fix or remove the tooth and scheduled

no further appointments. Plaintiff alleges that he eventually saw the dentist again in January 2011, after he filed

grievances, and again the dentist determined that he could not extract the tooth. The dentist allegedly referred

Plaintiff to a dentist outside the facility, but Plaintiff never saw an outside dentist. 

Although deliberate indifference to a serious dental need can give rise to a valid legal claim, see

McGowan v. Hulick, 612 F.3d 636, 640 (7th Cir. 2010); Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 440-43 (7th Cir.

2010), the complaint leaves it unclear how each Defendant was involved. A complaint must state a viable

federal claim and must also provide each defendant with sufficient notice of what he or she is alleged to have

done. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); see also Palmer v. Marion County, 327 F.3d

588, 594 (7th Cir. 2003) (a § 1983 defendant named in his or her individual capacity must have been

personally involved in some way with the alleged constitutional violaton to be liable). 

Plaintiff names as Defendants Cook County Jail Correctional Rehabilitation Workers (“CRW”) Hinton

and Sreeman; Superintendent Brandlen; and an unnamed dentist in Division 10 of the Jail. The only Defendant

12C3603 Shuntay Shearer (#2011-0622038) vs. Hinton, et al. Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT

discussed in Plaintiff’s description of his claims is the unknown dentist. Unless Plaintiff indicates how each

Defendant was involved, the defendants will have inadequate notice of what they are claimed to have done. 

Accordingly, the Court dismisses the complaint and gives Plaintiff permission to submit an amended complaint

that not only states a valid claim but also describes how each Defendant was involved. If Plaintiff does not

know the name of certain Defendants, he may refer to them as John Doe or Jane Doe. Plaintiff’s failure to

submit an acceptable amended complaint will result in the dismissal of this case. 

In addition to submitting an amended complaint, Plaintiff must submit an updated IFP application as a

nonprisoner. Because Plaintiff initiated this suit as an incarcerated person, the Prison Litigation Reform Act

applies. Plaintiff remains responsible for the initial partial filing fee of $15.00, but now he must provide the

Court with his current financial and employment status so that the Court can assess his ability to pay the filing

fee. See Robbins v. Switzer, 104 F.3d 895, 898 (7th Cir. 1997).

The Clerk shall mail Plaintiff, at the home address he provided to the Court, an amended complaint

and IFP form. Plaintiff’s failure to submit within 30 days of the date of this order both an acceptable

amended complaint and an updated IFP application as a non-prisoner will result in the dismissal of this case. 

The Court may revisit the appointment of counsel after Plaintiff complies with this order. The Court expresses

its appreciation to Attorney Harold Rosen for accepting appointment; however, his services are not needed at

the present time.

12C3603 Shuntay Shearer (#2011-0622038) vs. Hinton, et al. Page 2 of 2