Derrick Stephen Walker v. E. Walters et al.

Walker · United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division · May 20, 2026 · No. 25-1168

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois screened Derrick Stephen Walker’s amended complaint concerning alleged delays in medication-assisted treatment and medical care for abnormal EKG results while incarcerated at FCI Pekin. The court granted leave to amend but dismissed the amended pleading under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a plausible federal claim, while granting leave to file a second amended pleading. The court also deemed the renewed in forma pauperis petition moot and left the motion for counsel pending.

Court
United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division
Writing for the Court
Colleen R. Lawless
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Peoria Division
Decision date
May 20, 2026
Docket number
25-1168
Procedural posture
The court reviewed Plaintiff's amended prisoner complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A after granting leave to amend an earlier complaint that had been dismissed for insufficient factual allegations.
Standard of review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court accepts factual allegations as true and construes them liberally in the plaintiff's favor, but conclusory statements and labels are insufficient; the pleading must state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.
Precedential value
Nonprecedential district-court order
Parties
Derrick Stephen Walker v. E. Walters et al.
Disposition
other

Topics

motion to amendpleadingscivil procedureprisoners rightshealth law

Practice areas

civil procedureconstitutional lawcivil rightsprisoner litigationhealth law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiff's amended complaint stated a plausible Bivens claim for constitutional violations arising from alleged delays or failures in medical treatment.
  2. Whether the amended complaint adequately alleged each defendant's personal responsibility for the claimed constitutional deprivations.
  3. Whether Plaintiff should be granted leave to file a second amended complaint after dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Holdings

  1. The amended complaint failed to state a plausible federal claim because its allegations did not establish a constitutional violation or identify facts connecting any named defendant to the alleged denial or delay of medical treatment.
  2. A complaint seeking damages for constitutional violations must specify the constitutional violation, when it occurred, and the defendant or defendants personally involved in the deprivation.
  3. The court granted Plaintiff a final opportunity to file a second amended pleading within thirty days, subject to compliance with the court's instructions.

Key quotations

The Supreme Court has since “made clear that expanding the Bivens remedy is now a ‘disfavored’ judicial activity[,]” which the Supreme Court has refused to extend for decades.
Consequently, Plaintiff’s amended pleading is dismissed because it fails to state a plausible claim for relief.
If Plaintiff does not file an amendment on or before the deadline established or fails to comply with the provided instructions, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s case without prejudice.

Factual background

Plaintiff, a federal inmate at FCI Pekin, alleged delays in receiving medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder and delays in responding to abnormal electrocardiograms. A physician ordered medical clearance and placement on a priority list for the treatment program, and later an abnormal EKG led to a cardiology consultation. Plaintiff's amended complaint did not identify a specific defendant who personally failed to provide treatment; it alleged that Defendant Schumm referred him for an off-site cardiology evaluation after a second abnormal EKG.

Procedural history

Plaintiff initially alleged delays in receiving medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder, and the court dismissed the initial complaint while allowing thirty days to amend. Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint and moved for leave to file it, to proceed in forma pauperis, and for appointment of counsel. The court granted leave to amend but dismissed the amended pleading under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a federal claim, while granting a final thirty-day opportunity to file a second amended pleading.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…