Gary L. Mayfield v. Greg Donathan, et al.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. Illinois
DecidedOctober 17, 2025
Docket4:25-cv-04097
StatusUnknown

This text of Gary L. Mayfield v. Greg Donathan, et al. (Gary L. Mayfield v. Greg Donathan, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gary L. Mayfield v. Greg Donathan, et al., (C.D. Ill. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ROCK ISLAND DIVISION

GARY L. MAYFIELD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 25-4097 ) GREG DONATHAN, et al. ) ) Defendants. )

MERIT REVIEW ORDER Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The “privilege to proceed without posting security for costs and fees is reserved to the many truly impoverished litigants who, within the District Court’s sound discretion, would remain without legal remedy if such privilege were not afforded to them.” Brewster v. North Am. Van Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 1972). A court must dismiss cases proceeding in forma pauperis “at any time” if the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim, even if part of the filing fee has been paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)(2). This Court grants leave to proceed in forma pauperis only if the complaint states a federal action. 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). 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. U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). Plaintiff alleges that he was detained at Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility (“TDF”). He alleges that he told Defendant Woods that another TDF resident had threatened him. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Woods told him that she would not do anything to help him. Plaintiff alleges that the resident attacked him with an iron, resulting in a severe head injury and emergency medical treatment. Plaintiff states a Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Defendant Woods in her individual capacity. Hardeman v. Curran, 933 F.3d 816, 823 (7th Cir. 2019).

Plaintiff does make any allegations against Defendants Donathan, Posey, and Hinthorne. He cannot proceed against these defendants just because they may have been in charge. Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987, 991 (7th Cir. 1996) (“Section 1983 creates a cause of action based on personal liability and predicated upon fault; thus, liability does not attach unless the individual defendant caused or participated in a constitutional deprivation.”); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). The Court will dismiss these defendants accordingly. Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Counsel (Doc. 3) Plaintiff has no constitutional or statutory right to counsel in this case. In considering the Plaintiff’s motion, the court asks: (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, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff has not shown that he made a reasonable effort to obtain counsel on his own. A plaintiff usually does this by attaching copies of letters sent to attorneys seeking representation and copies of any responses received. Plaintiff’s unsubstantiated statements that he is trying to find an attorney is not enough. Balle v. Kennedy, 73 F.4th 545, 559-60 (7th Cir. 2023); Tackett v. Jess, 853 F. App’x 11, 16-17 (7th Cir. 2021). Because Plaintiff has not satisfied the first prong, the Court does not address the second. Eagan v. Dempsey, 987 F.3d 667, 682 (7th Cir. 2021). Plaintiff’s motion is denied with leave to renew. Plaintiff’s Motions for Medical Records (Docs. 5, 6) Plaintiff’s motions seek copies of his medical records. Plaintiff’s motions are denied as premature. If Plaintiff is unable to obtain these records via discovery, he may file a motion for a

subpoena for these records. Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 7) Plaintiff’s motion indicates that he is scheduled for surgery. He states that he may be “where…some of the defendants are” during his recovery, and he asks the Court to “keep [him] safe from retaliation.” To the extent that Plaintiff requests injunctive relief, “there must be a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint.” Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Medical Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). Absent such a relationship, a court lacks the authority to grant the injunctive relief requested. Id.

Plaintiff’s requested relief is unrelated to the claim he asserts in this lawsuit, and, therefore, the Court lacks authority to grant it. Plaintiff’s motion is denied. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis [2] is GRANTED. 2. Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court finds that the plaintiff states a Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Defendant Woods in her individual capacity. 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 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. 3. This case is now in the process of service. The plaintiff is advised to wait until counsel has appeared for the defendants before filing any motions, in order to give notice to the defendants and an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed before defendants' counsel has filed an appearance will generally be denied as premature. The plaintiff need not submit any evidence to the court at this time, unless otherwise directed by the court. 4. The court will attempt service on the defendants by mailing each defendant a waiver of service. The defendants have 60 days from the date the waiver is sent to file an answer. If the defendants have not filed answers or appeared through counsel within 90 days of the entry of this order, the plaintiff may file a motion requesting the status of service. After the defendants have been served, the court will enter an order setting discovery and dispositive motion deadlines. 5. With respect to a defendant who no longer works at the address provided by the plaintiff, the entity for whom that defendant worked while at that address shall provide 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. 6. The defendants shall file an answer within 60 days of the date the waiver is sent by the clerk. A motion to dismiss is not an answer. The answer should include all defenses appropriate under the Federal Rules.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Robert L. Brewster v. North American Van Lines, Inc.
461 F.2d 649 (Seventh Circuit, 1972)
Pruitt v. Mote
503 F.3d 647 (Seventh Circuit, 2007)
Gregory Turley v. Dave Rednour
729 F.3d 645 (Seventh Circuit, 2013)
Michael Alexander v. United States
721 F.3d 418 (Seventh Circuit, 2013)
Tapanga Hardeman v. David Wathen
933 F.3d 816 (Seventh Circuit, 2019)
Shawn Eagan v. Michael Dempsey
987 F.3d 667 (Seventh Circuit, 2021)
Willie Balle v. David Kennedy
73 F.4th 545 (Seventh Circuit, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Gary L. Mayfield v. Greg Donathan, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gary-l-mayfield-v-greg-donathan-et-al-ilcd-2025.