The opinion
IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
LARRY PRICE,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 3:25-cv-03134-JEH
MANTON, et al.,
Defendants.
Merit Review Order
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging violations of his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at
Western Illinois Correctional Center (“Western”). (Doc. 1). This case is before the
Court for a merit review of Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
The Court must “screen” Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismiss any legally insufficient
claim or the entire action if warranted. § 1915A. 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.” Id. In reviewing the Complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as
true, liberally construing them in the Plaintiff’s favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d
645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013). However, conclusory statements and labels are
insufficient. Enough facts must be provided to “state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face.” Alexander v. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)
(citation omitted).
I
Plaintiff files suit against Lieutenant Manton, Correctional Counselor Eric
Wohlfeil, Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) member Jeremy Bonnett, and
Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) Acting Director LaToya Hughes.
During medication pass on July 13, 2023, Plaintiff requested medical
attention because he felt severely ill and dizzy. Later that day, Plaintiff showed
Nurse Glover that he was vomiting blood. She immediately informed security staff
that Plaintiff needed to be taken to the healthcare unit, but Defendant Manton
allegedly refused to allow Plaintiff to go to the healthcare unit. As a result, Plaintiff
was later rushed to St. John’s Hospital in Springfield, Illinois, diagnosed with keto
acidosis, and placed in intensive care. Plaintiff claims he lost a hundred pounds
and suffered from depression.
Plaintiff alleges he filed a grievance about Defendant Manton’s conduct, but
Defendant Wohlfeil denied the grievance as moot and did not consider his
supporting evidence. When Plaintiff appealed, Defendant Bonnett allegedly
denied the grievance as untimely and refused to address the issue. Plaintiff alleges
Defendant Hughes failed to correct Defendant Bonnett’s actions and concurred
with his decision.
II
It is well established that deliberate indifference to a serious medical need is
actionable as a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Hayes v. Snyder, 546 F.3d 516,
522 (7th Cir. 2008). A claim of deliberate indifference contains both an objective
and a subjective component. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). To satisfy
the objective component, a prisoner must demonstrate that his medical condition
is “objectively, sufficiently serious.” Id. An objectively serious medical condition
is one that “has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that
is so obvious that even a lay person would perceive the need for a doctor’s
attention.” Hayes, 546 F.3d at 522. To satisfy the subjective component, the inmate
must demonstrate that the prison official acted with a “sufficiently culpable state
of mind.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. The official must know of and disregard an
excessive risk to the inmate’s health; “the official must both be aware of facts from
which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,
and he must also draw the inference.” Id. at 837. The prisoner must show that the
defendant engaged in more than negligence and that the defendant’s conduct
approached intentional wrongdoing or criminal recklessness. Holloway v. Delaware
Cnty. Sheriff, 700 F.3d 1063, 1073 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837).
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to proceed on an
Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Manton for
allegedly refusing to allow Plaintiff to be taken to the healthcare unit for medical
care after Plaintiff began vomiting blood on July 13, 2023.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Wohlfeil, Bonnett, and Hughes mishandled
his grievance regarding Defendant Manton’s conduct. “[T]he Constitution does
not obligate prisons to provide a grievance process, nor does the existence of a
grievance process itself create a protected interest.” Montanez v. Feinerman, 439 F.
App'x 545, 547-48 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953-54 (7th
Cir. 2011)); Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763, 772-73 (7th Cir. 2008). “[T]he
mishandling of an inmate grievance alone cannot be a basis for liability under §
1983.” Montanez, 439 F. App’x at 547 (citing Owens, 635 F.3d at 953-54); George v.
Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609-10 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff fails to state a deliberate
indifference claim based solely on Defendants’ alleged mishandling of his
grievance. Defendants Wohlfeil, Bonnett, and Hughes are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) and § 1915A.
III
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Request Counsel asking the Court to appoint an
attorney to represent him. (Doc. 4). "There is no right to court-appointed counsel
in federal civil litigation." Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708, 711 (7th Cir. 2014). When
evaluating a Motion to Request Counsel, the Court must consider: "(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, 655
(7th Cir. 2007). "When evaluating a plaintiff's competence, district courts should
normally consider the plaintiff's literacy, communication skills, education level,
and litigation experience." Bracey v. Grondin, 712 F.3d 1012, 1018 n.3 (7th Cir. 2013)
(citing Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655). The inquiry is individualized, taking all the relevant
facts into consideration, including the stage of the litigation. Navejar v. Igiola, 718
F.3d 692, 696 (7th Cir. 2013). The Court may also consider "the perceived merits
of–or likelihood of success on–an indigent plaintiff's claims in its decision whether
to allocate scarce pro bono counsel resources to the case before it." Watts v. Kidman,
42 F.4th 755, 764 (7th Cir. 2022).
Plaintiff attached three letters from attorneys who declined to represent
him. (Doc. 4 at pp. 3-5). The Court finds Plaintiff has made a reasonable attempt to
secure counsel on his own. Regarding his competency, Plaintiff states he only
completed grammar school. However, his pleadings thus far have been coherent
and supported by accompanying exhibits. The Court finds that Plaintiff appears
competent to litigate the case himself, especially at this early stage in the litigation
process. Plaintiff’s Motion is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) According to the Court's merit review of Plaintiff's Complaint under
§ 1915A, this case shall proceed an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant
Manton based on his alleged deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical
needs on July 13, 2023. Additional claims shall not be included in the case above,
except in the Court's discretion on motion by a party for good cause shown under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
2) Defendants Eric Wohlfeil, Jeremy Bonnett, and LaToya Hughes are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and § 1915A. The Clerk is directed to TERMINATE
them as parties.
3) Plaintiff's Motion to Request Counsel [4] is DENIED.
4) This case is now in the process of service. The Court advises Plaintiff
to wait until counsel has appeared for Defendant before filing any motions to give
Defendant notice and an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed
before Defendant’s counsel has filed an appearance will generally be denied as
premature. Plaintiff need not submit any evidence to the Court at this time unless
otherwise directed by the Court.
5) The Court will attempt service on Defendant by mailing a waiver of
service. If Defendant fails to sign and return a waiver of service to the Clerk within
30 days after the waiver is sent, the Court will take appropriate steps to effect
formal service through the U.S. Marshals Service on Defendant and will require
Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(d)(2).
6) Defendant shall file an answer within 60 days of the date the Clerk
sends the waiver of service. A motion to dismiss is not an answer. The answer
should include all defenses appropriate under the Federal Rules. The answer and
subsequent pleadings shall be to the issues and claims stated in this Order. In
general, an answer sets forth Defendant’s positions. The Court does not rule on
the merits of those positions unless and until Defendant files a motion. Therefore,
no response to the answer is necessary or will be considered. If Defendant has not
filed an answer or appeared through counsel within 90 days of the entry of this
Order, Plaintiff may file a motion requesting the status of service. After Defendant
has been served, the Court will enter a scheduling order setting discovery and
dispositive motion deadlines.
7) If Defendant no longer works at the address Plaintiff provided, the
entity for whom Defendant worked while at that address shall submit to the Clerk
Defendant’s current work address, or, if not known, Defendant’s forwarding
address. This information shall be used only for effectuating service.
Documentation of Defendant’s forwarding address shall be retained only by the
Clerk and shall not be maintained in the public docket nor disclosed by the Clerk.
8) This District uses electronic filing, which means that after Defendant’s
counsel has filed an appearance, Defendant’s counsel will automatically receive
electronic notice of any motion or other paper filed by Plaintiff with the Clerk.
Plaintiff does not need to mail to Defendant’s counsel copies of motions and other
documents that 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. Plaintiff must mail his discovery requests and responses directly
to Defendant’s 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 Defendant’s counsel has filed an appearance and
the Court has entered a scheduling order, which will explain the discovery process
in more detail.
9) Defendant’s counsel is hereby granted leave to depose Plaintiff at
Plaintiff’s place of confinement. Defendant’s counsel shall arrange the time for the
deposition.
10) Plaintiff shall immediately inform the Court, in writing, of any change
in his mailing address and telephone number. Plaintiff’s failure to notify the Court
of a change in mailing address or phone number will result in dismissal of this
lawsuit, with prejudice.
11) Plaintiff shall be provided a copy of all pertinent medical records
upon request.
12) Within 10 days of receiving from defense counsel an authorization to
release medical records, Plaintiff is directed to sign and return the authorization
to Defendant’s counsel. The Clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified
protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act.
13) The Clerk is directed to set an internal court deadline 60 days from
the entry of this Order for the Court to check on the status of service and enter
scheduling deadlines.
It is so ordered.
Entered: July 21, 2025
s/Jonathan E. Hawley
U.S. District Judge