Robertson v. Wexford Health Services et al
| Shauntae Robertson |
| Wexford Health Services, John/Jane Doe 1, DeAnna Kink, Kelly Pierce, A. Wills, Nurse Practitioner Moldenhauer, Nurse Practitioner Dearmond, Tawanna King, Angela Crain, John/Jane Doe 2 and Nurse Maryanne |
| 3:2022cv00750 |
| April 18, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| David W Dugan |
| Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 11, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 21
ORDER: Plaintiff's Second Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 20) is DENIED without prejudice. Civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to counsel. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 649 (7th Cir. 2007). A district court considering an indigent plaintiff's request for counsel must first consider whether the plaintiff has made reasonable attempts to secure counsel on his own or been effectively precluded from doing so; and, if so, whether the difficulty of the case factually and legally exceeds his capacity as a layperson to present it. Id. at 654-655. Plaintiff seeks counsel for the same reasons the Court already considered with his original Motion #3 . Plaintiff now adds that because two of his motions for preliminary injunction have been denied, it is clear that he is not capable of representing himself. The Court appreciates the difficulty Plaintiff faces litigating from the confines of prison and with limited literacy. However, this case is still in the earliest stages. Preliminary injunctive relief is rare, and the denial of two motions for preliminary injunction are not indicative of an inability of Plaintiff to represent his interests. The Court does not find that Plaintiff has presented any additional basis for counsel beyond what was already considered. Plaintiff's Second Motion for Counsel #20 will be denied because the case is still in its infancy. If this case proceeds to trial, Plaintiff may file a new motion for counsel. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 6/13/2022. (kgk)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
|
Filing 20
MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Shauntae Robertson. (kare)
|
|
Filing 19
ORDER: Plaintiff's Second Motion for a Preliminary Injunction #18 is DENIED. Plaintiff's original Motion for a Preliminary Injunction #4 was denied because it lacked details about the nature and severity of his ongoing injury, it lacked specificity about the care he sought as injunctive relief, and medical records that accompanied his complaint suggested that he was receiving ongoing care. His current Motion #18 does little to change the analysis. Plaintiff previously alleged that the pain medication he had been given was delayed or was too weak, but he now alleges he has not gotten any medication for nearly a year. Counseling summaries that he submitted in support of this Motion indicate that as recently as May 20, 2022, the chief administrative officer deemed his grievance about medications an emergency. This suggests that the issue is being addressed by the facility. Plaintiff also claims that he is often handcuffed behind his back, which causes great pain. A counseling summary he submitted from April 26, 2022, shows that a grievance he submitted about medical permits was also deemed an emergency. Based on the counseling summaries, it appears that there are ongoing efforts at the facility to address his concerns. Additionally, Plaintiff was cautioned that his original motion for a preliminary injunction was not granted because it did not contain a clear demand for discrete action. The second motion has the same problem. Plaintiff asks that defendants be required to effect[] adequate medical treatment for debilitating arthritis, severe sprains, and breaks, and tears of ligaments for all inmates. This demand is too generic to warrant injunctive relief. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is denied. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 6/2/2022. (kgk)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
|
Filing 18
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Shauntae Robertson. (kare)
|
|
Filing 17
WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed Nurse Practitioner Moldenhauer waiver sent on 5/2/2022, answer due 7/1/2022. (kare)
|
|
Filing 16
CONSENT/NON-CONSENT TO U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE - sealed pending receipt from all parties. (kare)
|
|
Filing 15
NOTICE: Shauntae Robertson was directed to file the attached form regarding consenting or declining to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. The time for doing so has now passed, and the Court has not received the form. As required by Administrative Order No. 257, Shauntae Robertson shall return the form within 7 days or face possible sanctions. Consent due by 5/17/2022 (kek)
|
|
Filing 14
Initial Prisoner Filing Fee: $ 232.51 received, receipt number 44625014597 (kdw)
|
|
Filing 13
WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed Nurse Practitioner Dearmond waiver sent on 4/26/2022, answer due 6/27/2022. (tjk)
|
|
Filing 12
SECOND REQUEST FOR WAIVER of Service sent to King and Moldenhauer on 5/2/2022. Waiver of Service due by 6/1/2022. (tjk)
|
|
Filing 11
Waiver of Service Returned Unexecuted as to Moldenhauer and King. (tjk)
|
|
Filing 10
HIPAA Qualified Protective Order. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 4/26/2022. (kek)
|
|
Filing 9
REQUEST FOR WAIVER of Service sent to Moldenhauer, Dearmond and King on 4/26/2022. Waiver of Service due by 5/26/2022. (tjk)
|
|
Filing 8
Order of Initial Review: Upon initial review of Plaintiff's Complaint under the terms of 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A, the Court determined that Claim 1 may proceed against Defendants Moldenhauer and Dearmond, and Claim 2 may proceed against Defendant King. Claim 3 shall be dismissed for failure to state a claim. There are no sufficient claims against Defendants Nurse Maryanne, Wexford Health Source, Inc., John/Jane Doe 1, DeAnna Kink, Kelly Pierce, A. Wills, Crain, or John/Jane Doe 2, so the Clerk is DIRECTED to TERMINATE these parties. For reasons explained in this Order, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction #4 is DENIED, and the Motion for Recruitment of Counsel is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to prepare for Defendants Moldenhauer, Dearmond and King: (1) Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service of Summons) and to mail these forms, a copy of the Complaint, and this Memorandum and Order to the defendant's place of employment as identified by Plaintiff. The defendants must file an appropriate responsive pleading, and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(g). The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter the standard HIPAA Order in this case based on the allegations. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 4/25/2022. (kgk)
|
|
Filing 7
ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") (Doc. #2 ). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(b)(1), Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $232.51. The agency having custody of Plaintiff is directed to forward the initial partial filing fee from Plaintiff's account to the Clerk of Court upon receipt of this Order. Plaintiff shall make monthly payments of 20% of the preceding month's income credited to Plaintiff's prison trust fund account (including all deposits to the inmate account from any source) until the $350.00 filing fee is paid in full. The agency having custody of Plaintiff shall forward payments from Plaintiff's account to the Clerk of this Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 until the $350.00 filing fee is paid.In addition, Plaintiff shall note that the filing fees for multiple cases cumulate. See Newlin v. Helman, 123 F.3d 429, 436 (7th Cir. 1997), overruled in part on other grounds by Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025 (7th Cir. 2000); Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2000). A prisoner who files one suit must remit 20% of his monthly income to the Clerk of the Court until his fees have been paid; a prisoner who files a second suit or an appeal must remit 40%; and so on. Newlin, 123 F.3d at 436. "Five suits or appeals mean that the prisoner's entire monthly income must be turned over to the court until the fees have been paid." Id. Payments shall be mailed to: Clerk of the Court, United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, 750 Missouri Avenue, East St. Louis, Illinois 62201. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to the Trust Fund Officer at the Menard Correctional Center upon entry of this Order. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 4/25/2022. (tjk)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
|
Filing 6
NOTICE FROM CLERK Instructing Shauntae Robertson to file Notice and Consent to Proceed Before A Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction Form: Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 257, within 21 days of this Notice, you must file the attached form indicating your consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge or an affirmative declination to consent. Consent/Non-Consent to U.S. Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction form sent to Shauntae Robertson on 04/18/2022. Consent due by 5/9/2022 (kare)
|
|
Filing 5
NOTICE AND ORDER: The Court has received your complaint and your motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. Your case number is 22-750-DWD. The following is some information you should know regarding the initial stages of your lawsuit. After your filing fee status is determined, the Court will review your complaint to identify legally sufficient claims and defendants and dismiss any legally insufficient claims. See: 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915A. The Court will conduct this review within the next 60 days and inform you of the findings in a Merit Review Order. No other action will be taken in your case during this time, absent extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, you do not need to submit any evidence, argument, motions, or other documents. If you filed a motion for recruitment of counsel along with your complaint, it will not be considered until the merit review is complete. Please note that any motion for recruitment of counsel must include evidence of your own efforts to find counsel, such as a list of the attorneys you contacted and copies of letters you sent or received. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). If you do not receive a Merit Review Order within the next 60 days, you may file a motion requesting the status of your case. In the event your claim(s) survive the merit review, further information and instruction will be provided to you at that time. In addition, several administrative matters warrant mention. Any communication directed to the Court should be in the form of a motion or other pleading and not a letter. All mail should be sent to: Clerk's Office, U.S. District Court, 750 Missouri Avenue, East St. Louis, IL 62201. Finally, you are advised that if your address changes, you must notify the Court within seven days of the change by filing a Notice of Change of Address. Failure to do so could result in the dismissal of your case. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 4/18/2022. (kare)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
|
Filing 4
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Shauntae Robertson. (kare)
|
|
Filing 3
MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Shauntae Robertson. (kare)
|
|
Filing 2
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Shauntae Robertson. (kare)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Shauntae Robertson.(kare)
|
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
