Britton v. Loera

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

THOMAS BRITTON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 24-cv-02360-SPM

JOSEPH LOERA, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MCGLYNN, District Judge: Plaintiff Thomas Britton, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center (Menard), proceeding pro se, filed his Complaint on October 24, 2025, claiming that he was subjected to excessive force and then denied medical care for his injuries. (Doc. 13). Following an initial screening of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Plaintiff is proceeding with the following claims: Count 1: Eighth Amendment excessive force and/or failure to intervene claim against Loera, Dintelmann, Martin, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, and Edwards1 for the use of excessive force against Plaintiff on or around May 17, 2024.

Count 2: Eighth Amendment claim against Loera, Dintelmann, Martin, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, and Edwards for denying Plaintiff access to medical care for his injuries sustained from the use of force on or around May 17, 2024.

(Doc. 13). Plaintiff is now represented by counsel, and before the Court is a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 32). Defendants did not file a response in opposition to the motion. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that a party may amend a pleading and that

1 Lucas Martin was substituted for John Doe 1, and Brandon Edwards was substituted for Lt. John Doe. (Doc. 30). leave to amend should be freely given “when justice so requires.” The Seventh Circuit maintains a liberal attitude toward the amendment of pleadings “so that cases may be decided on the merits and not on the basis of technicalities.” Stern v. U.S. Gypsum, Inc., 547 F.2d 1329, 1334 (7th Cir. 1977). The Seventh Circuit recognizes that “the complaint merely serves to put the defendant on

notice and is to be freely amended or constructively amended as the case develops, as long as amendments do not unfairly surprise or prejudice the defendant.” Toth v. USX Corp., 883 F.2d 1297, 1298 (7th Cir. 1989); see also Winger v. Winger, 82 F.3d 140, 144 (7th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff’s motion is timely filed and will not prejudice Defendants. Thus, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 32). Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file the proposed amended complaint separately on the docket as the “First Amended Complaint” INSTANTER. The First Amended Complaint, however, is still subject to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Accepting the allegations as true, the Court finds that Plaintiff has articulated a colorable federal cause of action against Defendants Joseph Loera, Justin Dintelmann, Brandon Edwards,

Lucas Martin, Christina Kempfer, Nurse Jane Doe, and John Does 1-7. Accordingly, Plaintiff will proceed with Counts 1-3 as designated in the First Amended Complaint. Warden Anthony Wills will remain a defendant in his official capacity only for the purpose of responding to John/Jane Doe discovery. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to serve process on John Does 1-7 and Nurse Jane Doe (once identified) and Christina Kempfer in accordance with the Court’s previous Merit Review Order. (Doc. 13). All Defendants are ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the First Amended Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g). Defendants are ADVISED that the Court does not accept piecemeal answers. The deadlines for late appearing parties to make initial disclosures and file a motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion are provided in the Initial Scheduling and Discovery Order. (Doc. 23). The deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion to substitute specific defendants for the John/Jane

Does remains August 11, 2025. (Doc. 30). IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 31, 2025

_s/Stephen P. McGlynn STEPHEN P. MCGLYNN United States District Judge