Source: http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190626_0000952.SIL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-04-06 21:08:26
Document Index: 374000151

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 241', '§ 242']

FindACase™ | Vanzant v. Santos
Vanzant v. Santos
BENZANTA VANZANT, #A62585, Plaintiff,
DR. VENERIO SANTOS, ASSISTANT WARDEN DAVID STOCK, DAVID HANKS, and ANESSA SHAW, Defendants.
Plaintiff Benzanta Vanzant, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections currently incarcerated at Centralia Correctional Center (“Centralia”), brings this action for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Following screening of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Plaintiff was allowed to proceed with a single Eighth Amendment medical deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Santos. (Doc. 10). All other claims were dismissed without prejudice.
On April 19, 2019, [1] two days after Defendant Santos filed his Answer (Doc. 17), Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 19) and a proposed Amended Complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) states that “[a] party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading[.]” Plaintiff's motion is timely and complies with Rule 15(a)(1). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 19) will be granted, and the Clerk will be directed to file the First Amended Complaint. Of course, the First Amended Complaint is still subject to review pursuant to Section 1915A.
Under Section 1915A, the Court is required to screen prisoner complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. 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 requests money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
The allegations in the First Amended Complaint are substantially the same as those summarized in the Court's initial Merit Review Order (Doc. 10), and the details will not be recounted here. Put simply, Plaintiff's claims all relate to Defendants' refusal to renew his medications that treat his chronic medical conditions. He alleges claims under federal and state law. The Court will identify and discuss any additional allegations as necessary to address Plaintiff's claims.
Based on the allegations of the First Amended Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to designate the following eleven counts:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's chronic medical conditions by failing to renew Plaintiff's medications for those conditions.
Count 2: Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendants for failing to renew Plaintiff's medications for his chronic medical conditions.
Count 3: Fourteenth Amendment claim against Stock for mishandling Plaintiff's grievance.
Count 4: Defendants failed to perform their official administrative duty to ensure medication was issued timely when requested by Plaintiff.
Count 5: American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Veterans' Disability Act claim against Defendants for failing to renew Plaintiff's medications for his chronic medical conditions and failing to perform their duty to ensure his medication was issued timely when requested by him.
Count 6: State law gross negligence claim against Defendants.
Count 7: State law assault, battery, and torture claims against Defendants.
Count 8: Defendants conspired to violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and § 242.
Count 9: Illinois constitutional law claim against Defendants for denying and/or failing to renew Plaintiff's medications for his chronic medical conditions and failing to perform their duty to ensure his medication was issued timely when requested by him.
Count 10: Failure to comply with 730 ILCS 5/3-6-2(e) and (f).
Count 11: Intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against Defendants.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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. The designations do not constitute an opinion regarding their merit. Any other intended claim that has not been recognized by the Court isconsidered ...