Bennett

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SPRINGFIELD DIVISION

ROOSEVELT BENNETT, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 3:25-cv-03289-SEM

)

ELI GOODMAN et al., )

Defendants. )

MERIT REVIEW ORDER

SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, United States District Judge:

Before the Court for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A is a

Complaint (Doc. 1) filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Petition to

Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (Doc. 3) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 by

Plaintiff Roosevelt Bennett, a Chicago resident.

The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s account states an Eighth

Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs claim. The

Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP Petition.

I. COMPLAINT

A. Screening Standard

The Court must “screen” Plaintiff’s complaint and dismiss any

legally insufficient claim or the entire action if warranted. 28 U.S.C.

§ 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 accurate, 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).

B. Alleged Facts

Plaintiff alleges constitutional violations at Taylorville

Correctional Center (“Taylorville”) against Dr. Eli Goodman and

Taylorville Warden Joshua McDannald.

During Plaintiff’s incarceration at Taylorville, which occurred

from April through October 2024, he sought medical treatment for

his feet. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Goodman discontinued all

of Plaintiff’s medications and denied Plaintiff a referral to a

podiatrist. Plaintiff claimed that Goodman did not order treatment

for his feet until July 2025, which was just before Plaintiff’s release

date from the Illinois Department of Corrections. (Pl. Compl., Doc. 1

at 1.)

C. Analysis

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), a complaint need

only contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that

the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “This

requirement is satisfied if the complaint (1) describes the claim in

sufficient detail to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is

and the grounds upon which it rests and (2) plausibly suggests that

the plaintiff has a right to relief above a speculative level.” Bravo v.

Midland Credit Mgmt., 812 F.3d 599, 601–02 (7th Cir. 2016); see also

Charleston v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill. at Chi., 741 F.3d 769, 772

(7th Cir. 2013) (“Instead, a plausible claim must include ‘factual

content’ sufficient to allow the court ‘to draw the reasonable inference

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’”) (quoting

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).

Plaintiff does not state a claim against Defendant McDannald,

as Plaintiff does not provide any facts that establish McDannald

deprived Plaintiff of a constitutional right. See Collins v. Kibort, 143

F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1998) (“A plaintiff cannot state a claim against

a defendant by including the defendant’s name in the caption.”).

“Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment’s proscription

against cruel and unusual punishment when their conduct

demonstrates ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of

prisoners.’” Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1369 (7th Cir. 1997)

(quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). To succeed on

a claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, a plaintiff

must satisfy a test that contains both an objective and subjective

component. Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987, 991 (7th Cir. 1996). Under

the objective element, a plaintiff must demonstrate that his medical

condition is sufficiently severe. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834

(1994). Under the subjective component, the prison official must have

acted with a “sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Id. Thus, a plaintiff

can establish deliberate indifference by showing that a defendant

“knew of a substantial risk of harm to the inmate and disregarded

the risk.” Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2005).

The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s account establishes an

Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendant

Goodman. See Lewis v. McLean, 864 F.3d 556, 563 (7th Cir. 2017)

(noting that a delay in medical treatment that causes an inmate to

suffer prolonged, unnecessary pain can be the basis for an Eighth

Amendment claim).

II. IFP Petition

Plaintiff IFP Petition is granted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1) Plaintiff’s IFP Petition (Doc. 3) is GRANTED.

2) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate Joshua

McDannald as a Defendant.

3) According to the Court’s merit review of Plaintiff’s

complaint [1] under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Plaintiff has alleged

enough facts to proceed with an Eighth Amendment

deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Goodman.

Any additional claims shall not be included in the case,

except at the Court’s discretion on motion by a party for

good cause shown or under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

15.

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 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

Defendant a waiver of service. Defendant has sixty days

from service to file an Answer. If Defendant has not filed

Answers or appeared through counsel within ninety 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 an order setting discovery and

dispositive motion deadlines.

6) If Defendant no longer works at the address provided by

Plaintiff, the entity for whom Defendant worked while at

that address shall submit to the Clerk said Defendant’s

current work address, or, if not known, said Defendant’s

forwarding address. This information shall be used only for

effectuating service. Documentation of forwarding

addresses shall be retained only by the Clerk and shall not

be maintained in the public docket nor disclosed by the

Clerk.

7) Defendant shall file an Answer within sixty days of the date

the Clerk sends the waiver. 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.

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) The Court grants Defendant’s counsel leave to depose

Plaintiff at his place of confinement. Defendant’s counsel

shall arrange the time for the deposition.

10) Plaintiff shall immediately notify the Court, in writing, of

any change in his mailing address and telephone number.

Plaintiff’s failure to inform the Court of a change in mailing

address or phone number will result in dismissal of this

lawsuit, with prejudice.

11) If Defendant fails to sign and return a waiver of service to

the Clerk within thirty days after the waiver is sent, the

Court will take appropriate steps to effect formal service

through the U.S. Marshals service on that Defendant and

will require that Defendant to pay the full costs of formal

service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2).

12) The Court directs the Clerk to enter the standard qualified

protective order under the Health Insurance Portability and

Accountability Act.

13) The Court directs the Clerk to attempt service on

Defendant under the standard procedures.

ENTERED November 3, 2025.

s/ Sue E. Myerscough

_______________________________________

SUE E. MYERSCOUGH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE