Source: http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20200106_0000016.SIL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-07-02 08:53:29
Document Index: 490767152

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1997']

FindACase™ | Green v. Lochard
Green v. Lochard
PRESTIN DWAYNE GREEN, #B89232, Plaintiff,
HUGHES LOCHARD, DOUGLAS CLARK, MARSHA LILLY, and KELLY LOUCKS, Defendants.
Plaintiff Prestin Green's First Amended Complaint is now before the Court for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against medical and jail staff at Perry County Jail (“Jail”) who denied him prescription medication for his seizure disorder. (Doc. 11, pp. 1-6). As a result of this deprivation, Plaintiff suffered several seizures and related injuries requiring emergency hospitalization. (Id.). He seeks monetary relief against the defendants. (Id. at p. 7).
The First Amended Complaint is now subject to preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the Court to screen prisoner complaints and filter out non-meritorious claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of the First Amended Complaint that is legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or requests money damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The factual allegations are liberally construed at this stage. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 11, p. 6): When he was booked into Perry County Jail in October 2018, Plaintiff was suddenly taken off his seizure medication. Plaintiff brought his prescription medication to the Jail, but the medical and/or jail staff confiscated it and refused to administer it to him. The sudden cessation of his medication caused Plaintiff to suffer numerous seizures and head trauma. He was taken to Carbondale Hospital and placed into a medically-induced coma until medical professionals could treat his head trauma and resume his medication. Plaintiff claims that Dr. Lochard, Nurse Loucks, Major Clark, and Lieutenant Lilly actively prevented him from taking his medication and caused him to suffer injuries as a result of their misconduct. (Id.).
Based on the allegations summarized herein, the Court designates a single claim in the pro se First Amended Complaint:
Count 1: Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendants for denying Plaintiff access to his seizure medication at the Jail in October 2018.
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 First Amended Complaint articulates a colorable Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendants. Construed liberally in favor of Plaintiff, the allegations suggest that each defendant was aware that Plaintiff required prescription medication for his seizure disorder and actively prevented him from taking it. These facts satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment's objective unreasonableness standard that is applicable to medical claims brought by pretrial detainees.[1] See King v. Kramer, 680 F.3d 1013 (7th Cir. 2012) (Fourteenth Amendment claim against jail nurse who abruptly stopped pretrial detainee's medication before he suffered seizures and death survived summary judgment). Count 1 cannot be dismissed against any defendants at this stage.
IT IS ORDERED that COUNT 1 survives screening against Defendants LOCHARD, LOUCKS, CLARK, and LILLY. Defendants are ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 11) and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 244, Defendants need only respond to the issues stated in this Merits Review Order.
Because Count 1 arises from the alleged denial of medical care, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
IT IS ORDERED that as to COUNT 1, the Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendants LOCHARD, LOUCKS, CLARK, and LILLY: (1) Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service of Summons). The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail these forms, a copy of the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 11), and this Memorandum and Order to each Defendant's place of employment as identified by Plaintiff. If a Defendant fails to sign and return the Waiver of Service of Summons (Form 6) to the Clerk within 30 days from the date the forms were sent, the Clerk shall take appropriate steps to effect formal service on that Defendant, and the Court will require that Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
With respect to a Defendant who no longer can be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff, the employer shall furnish the Clerk with the Defendant's current work address, or, if not known, the Defendant's last-known address. This information shall be used only for sending the forms as directed above or for formally effecting service. Any documentation of the address shall be ...