Fenderson v. Finkenbine

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION AMOS W. FENDERSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 25-1074 ) R. FINKENBINE, et al. ) ) Defendants. ) MERIT REVIEW ORDER Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and presently detained at Alton Mental Health Center, was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The case is now before the Court for a merit review of Plaintiff’s claims. The Court must “screen” Plaintiff’s complaint, and through such process to identify 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. 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—the facts alleged must “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 Defendant Finkenbine evaluated him in January 2024 after a state court had ordered a fitness evaluation in Plaintiff’s state court criminal case. Plaintiff alleges that another doctor found him unfit to stand trial following a second evaluation, and that the state court later found him “not not guilty” during a discharge hearing. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Finkenbine included in his report to the court privileged communications between him and psychiatrist that occurred in September 2023. Plaintiff alleges that he did not discuss this interaction with Defendant Finkenbine during his evaluation. Plaintiff does not state a claim based upon the alleged violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). HIPPA does not provide for a private cause of action. Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 F. App’x 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend as directed below to permit Plaintiff the opportunity to clarify his allegations and provide any additional information he desires the Court to consider. Plaintiff’s Motions to Request Counsel (Docs. 4, 8) 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 contacted lawyers is not enough. 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 motions are denied with leave to renew. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1) Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of this order to file an amended complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in the dismissal of this case, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff's amended complaint will replace Plaintiff's original complaint in its entirety. The amended complaint must contain all allegations against all Defendants. Piecemeal amendments are not accepted. 2) Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a blank complaint form. 3) Plaintiff’s Motions [4][8] are DENIED with leave to renew. Entered this 11 day of June, 2025. s/Sara Darrow SARA DARROW CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE