The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RODNEY MOORE, )
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) No. 19-4219
)
IDOC STAFF, )
Defendant )
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
This cause is before the Court for merit review of the Plaintiff’s complaint. 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, a pro se prisoner, claims Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) staff
violated his constitutional rights at Hill Correctional Center. Plaintiff says on March 26,
2019, a staff member handcuffed Plaintiff to the outside of his cell and pulled the chain
of his cuff until he began to bleed. Staff then refused to provide medical treatment for
Plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff is requesting damages.
There are several problems with Plaintiff’s complaint. First, Plaintiff’s complaint
identifies only general “IDOC-staff” as a Defendant and he must instead identify the
specific individual or individuals who are responsible for causing his injuries. (Comp.,
p. 2). The Court notes while the first line of Plaintiff’s complaint states “Seg. peel
(staff)” were responsible for handcuffing him, it is unclear whether “peel” is the name
of a specific staff member. (Comp., p. 5). If Plaintiff is unsure of a specific name, he
must at least provide a description such as the individual’s physical description or job
title and shift worked.
Second, Plaintiff has not clearly articulated a constitutional violation. An inmate
seeking damages for the use of excessive force need not establish serious bodily injury
to make a claim, but not “every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a
federal cause of action.” Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37–38 (2010). The question is
whether the force used was de minimis, not whether the injury suffered was de minimis.
Outlaw v. Newkirk, 259 F.3d 833, 837–38 (7th Cir. 2001).
Here, Plaintiff alleges only that guards pulled on a chain attached to his
handcuffs. The attached medical records do not provide any additional information
since the medical note indicates Plaintiff had dried blood on his thumb that appeared to
be from a different injury. (Comp., p. 9). However, there is no indication of a specific,
current injury in the record.
Plaintiff’s complaint is therefore dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. [1]. If Plaintiff believes he can clarify his allegation and state a
constitutional violation, he may file an amended complaint within 21 days. The
amended complaint must stand complete on its own, must not make reference to the
previous complaint, and must include all claims against all Defendants. Plaintiff must
identify the specific individuals involved, provide a description of the force used, and
indicate any specific injury. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or fails to
allege a constitutional violation, his case will be dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. [6]. Plaintiff has no
constitutional right to the appointment of counsel. In addition, the Court cannot
require an attorney to accept pro bono appointment in a civil case. The most the Court
can do is ask for volunteer counsel. See Jackson v. County of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070, 1071
(7th Cir. 1992).
In considering Plaintiff’s motion, the Court must ask two questions: “(1) has the
indigent plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or been effectively
precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff
appear competent to litigate it himself?” Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007),
citing Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319, 322 (7th Cir. 1993).
The Plaintiff has not provided any evidence demonstrating he has attempted to
find counsel on his own such as a list of attorneys contacted or copies of letters sent or
received. Therefore, the motion is denied. [6]. Plaintiff may renew his motion if he
clarifies his intended claim.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) The Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A.
2) If Plaintiff believes he can articulate a violation of his constitutional rights, he
may file a proposed amended complaint in compliance with this order within 21
days or on or before January 3, 2020. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended
complaint or fails to allege a constitutional violation, his case will be dismissed
with prejudice.
3) Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied with leave to renew
after Plaintiff clarifies his claim. [6].
4) The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide Plaintiff with a complaint form
and reset the internal merit review deadline within 30 days of this order.
Entered this 11th day of December, 2019.
s/ James E. Shadid
_________________________________________
JAMES E. SHADID
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE