Woods v. Schmeltz et al

Filing 5

MERIT REVIEW OPINION: The Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed as a violation of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff must file an amended complaint in compliance with this court order on or before October 24, 2014. If th e Plaintiff fails to file his complaint by this deadline or fails to follow the court's direction, his case will be dismissed. The clerk of the court is to provide the Plaintiff with a blank complaint form to assist him. The clerk of the court is to set an internal merit review deadline for November 7, 2014. (SEE WRITTEN OPINION) Rule 16 Deadline 12/1/2014. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 10/2/2014. (GL, ilcd)

E-FILED

Thursday, 02 October, 2014 10:44:29 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MAURICE WOODS,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRIAN SCHMELTZ, et. al,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

14-CV-1336

MERIT REVIEW OPINION
Sue E. Myerscough, U.S. District Judge.
The case is before the Court for a merit review pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. In reviewing the Complaint, the Court accepts the
factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in Plaintiff's
favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013).
However, 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)(quoted cite omitted).
ALLEGATIONS

Page 1 of 5 

The Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, claims nine Defendants at
Pontiac Correctional Center violated his constitutional rights
including Brian Schmeltz, Kent Robinson, Brian Maier, Randy
Lovrant, Jacob Liles, Glendal French, Adam Deal, James Berry and
John Doe.
The Plaintiff says he was placed in a cell on crisis watch on
August 22, 2013 and spread feces on his cell window. Defendants
Schmeltz, Deal, French and Robinson knew the feces was on the
window, but refused to clean the Plaintiff’s cell for four days. In
addition, Defendants Schmeltz and French denied him a lunch tray
on August 22, 2013.
The Plaintiff was moved to a second cell on August 26, 2103
where he remained until October 7, 2013. The Plaintiff says he told
Officer John Doe the cell smelled like feces, and the officer agreed to
tell his supervisor. The Plaintiff later discovered feces under his
sink and in the cracks of the window.
ANALYSIS
While the Plaintiff alleges there were feces on his cell window
for four days, he admits he was the one who placed the feces there.
In addition, the Plaintiff does not claim he was denied running
Page 2 of 5 

water or supplies to clean the window himself. The Plaintiff also
alleges there were feces in the second cell he was placed in from
August 26, 2013 to October 7, 2013. However, the Plaintiff did not
discover the feces until after he saw Defendant John Doe and he
does not allege he reported the feces to any of the named
Defendants, nor that the Defendants had any reason to know there
was feces in Plaintiff’s cell.
The court notes the Plaintiff has attached grievances to his
complaint which may provide more information, but the Plaintiff is
an experienced litigator and must clearly state his claims in the
body of his complaint. See Woods v Beal, Case No. 11-1254; Woods
v Maier, Case No. 12-1324; Woods v Arroyo, Case No. 12-1361;
Woods v Hitchens, Case No. 14-1350; Woods v Mans, Case No. 141028; Woods v Pfister, 14-1184; Woods v Hitchens, Case No. 141209; Woods v Schmeltz, Case No. 13-1477 in the Central District of
Illinois.
The Plaintiff has also failed to state a constitutional violation
based on the denial of one lunch tray. See Johnson v Arbeiter, 2010
WL 4717642 at 2(S.D.Ill Nov.15, 2010)(inmate deprived of one meal
does not state constitutional violation); Brown v Madison Police
Page 3 of 5 

Dept., 2003 WL 23095753 at 4(W.D.Wis. May 15, 2003)(missing two
meals on one occasion does not rise to constitutional violation);
Ellison v Minnear, 2009 WL 5217340 at 4 (S.D.Ill. Dec. 29,
2009)(inmate who claims he missed five separate meals but does
not allege any harm to his health fails to state a claim); Talib v
Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 214 n.3 (5th Cir. 1998)(denying an inmate one
out of every nine meals is not a constitutional violation).
“[D]istrict courts have a special responsibility to construe pro se
complaints liberally and to allow ample opportunity for amending
the complaint when it appears that by so doing the pro se litigant
would be able to state a meritorious claim.” Donald v Cook County
Sheriff’s Dept., 95 F.3d 548, 555 (7th Cir. 1996). Therefore, the
court will allow the Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended
complaint clarifying his claims concerning the conditions of his
confinement. The Plaintiff must not only describe the cell, but also
indicate how the Defendants knew about the conditions of his cell
and why he was unable to clean his cell. The Plaintiff must include
this information in the body of his complaint and not rely on
attachments.

Page 4 of 5 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1)

The Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed as a violation of

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2)

The Plaintiff must file an amended complaint in

compliance with this court order on or before October 24, 2014. If
the Plaintiff fails to file his complaint by this deadline or fails to
follow the court’s direction, his case will be dismissed. The clerk of
the court is to provide the Plaintiff with a blank complaint form to
assist him.
3)

The clerk of the court is to set an internal merit review

deadline for November 7, 2014.
ENTERED: October 2, 2014
FOR THE COURT:
s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 5 of 5