Marlo L. Obamedo v. Duncan et al.

Obamedo · United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Urbana Division · May 8, 2026 · No. 26-2071

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois screened Marlo L. Obamedo’s amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court allowed an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim to proceed against Dr. Duncan in an individual capacity, dismissed the other defendants and claims, and denied the motions for counsel with leave to renew.

Holdings

  1. Plaintiff's allegations were sufficient at the screening stage to state an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Duncan in Duncan's individual capacity.
  2. The alleged unauthorized confiscation of Plaintiff's personal property did not state a federal due-process claim because Illinois provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy through the Illinois Court of Claims.
  3. Plaintiff's allegation that Thompson failed to address her grievances did not state a constitutional claim.
  4. Plaintiff failed to state a constitutional claim based on Houser's failure to provide a key for the property-box lock.
  5. Plaintiff's claims against Botai arising from her detention at Cook County Jail were not properly venued in the Central District of Illinois and must be filed in the Northern District of Illinois.
  6. Plaintiff's motions for counsel were denied with leave to renew because she did not satisfy the threshold requirement of showing a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the amended complaint stated an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Duncan.
  2. Whether the alleged confiscation or loss of personal property stated a federal due-process claim when Illinois provides a post-deprivation remedy.
  3. Whether Thompson's alleged failure to address grievances stated a constitutional claim.
  4. Whether the lack of a key for a property-box lock stated a constitutional claim.
  5. Whether claims arising from alleged conduct at Cook County Jail were properly venued in the Central District of Illinois.
  6. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to appointed counsel in the civil-rights action.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (21)

  • Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013)(applied)
  • Alexander v. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(applied)
  • Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1369 (7th Cir. 1997)(applied)
  • Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)(applied)
  • Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987, 991 (7th Cir. 1996)(applied)
  • Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)(applied)
  • Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2005)(applied)
  • Rasho v. Elyea, 856 F.3d 469, 476 (7th Cir. 2017)(applied)
  • Sain v. Wood, 512 F.3d 886, 895 (7th Cir. 2008)(applied)
  • Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981)(applied)

Showing top 10 of 21.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…