Source: http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180725_0000361.CIL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 17:22:32+00:00

Document:
SANGAMON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, a pretrial detainee at the Sangamon County Jail, was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The case is now before the court for a merit review of plaintiff's claims. The court is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to “screen” the plaintiff's complaint, and through such process to identify and dismiss any legally insufficient claim, or the entire action if warranted. A claim is legally insufficient if it “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a four-week delay in receiving a new prescription to treat his mental health condition. Plaintifff alleges that the lack of medication caused him to attack another detainee.
Plaintiff states a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. See Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722, 729-30 (7th Cir. 2016)(en banc), but he does not identify which jail officials were responsible for the denial of access to treatment. The court will, however, add Jail Superintendent, Larry Beck as a defendant. See Donald v. Cook Co. Sheriff's Dept., 95 F.3d 548 (7th Cir. 1996)(the court may allow the case to proceed to discovery against a high-level official with the expectation that he will aid in identifying any Doe defendants.). Once the defendants are identified, Jail Superintendent Beck may move to be dismissed from the lawsuit.
The Sangamon Sheriff's Department will be dismissed as it is not a person amendable to suit. See Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (“[N]either a State[, ] nor its officials acting in their official capacities are “persons” under §1983.”).
1. Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court finds that the plaintiff states a Fourteenth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against Defendant Beck. 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.
6. 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 the plaintiff with the clerk. The plaintiff does not need to mail to defense counsel copies of motions and other papers that the plaintiff has filed with the clerk. However, this does not apply to discovery requests and responses. Discovery requests and responses are not filed with the clerk. The 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.

References: § 1915
 § 1915
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1983
 § 1915