Hoskins et al v. Creech et al

Filing 17

MERIT REVIEW OPINION (See Written Opinion): Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds that Plaintiff states the following claim: Eighth Amendment claim for inhumane conditions of confinement against D efendants Prentice, DeLong, Pierce, McGinnis, and Taylor. 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. All defendants except Prentice, DeLong, Pierce, McGinnis, and Taylor shall be dismissed. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 10/07/2015. (VM, ilcd)

E-FILED

Wednesday, 07 October, 2015 09:36:13 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants )

JOSHUA LEE HOSKINS,

v.
K PRENTICE, et al.

15-1134

MERIT REVIEW OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and presently incarcerated at
Menard Correctional Center, brought the present lawsuit pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment conditions-ofconfinement claims that occurred while he was incarcerated at
Pontiac Correctional Center. The matter comes before this Court
for merit review under 28 U.S.C. §1915A. In reviewing the
complaint, the Court takes all 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

Page 1 of 10

claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Alexander v. U.S., 721
F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013) (internal citation omitted).
FACTS
Plaintiff filed a 197-page Complaint naming 92 defendants.
The handwritten Complaint details each interaction with officials at
Pontiac Correctional Center (“Pontiac”) for the time period beginning
September 25, 2014, through December 27, 2014.
During that time, Plaintiff was housed in a cell that had feces
smeared on the walls and no cold running water. Plaintiff alleges
that he was denied showers, hygiene items, toilet paper, blankets,
sheets, and clothing. Plaintiff alleges that he was forced to drink
from the toilet because the running water in the cell was too hot for
consumption. Plaintiff alleges, in great detail, that Pontiac officials
were not responsive to his daily requests for help.
It appears that Plaintiff has sued every jail official at Pontiac
with whom he had contact during that time period. The tenor of
these conversations is the same: correctional lieutenants ordered
that their subordinates not provide Plaintiff with the items he
requested or take any steps to remedy the conditions within his cell.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Prentice was responsible for his
Page 2 of 10

initial placement within the cell, and that Defendants DeLong,
Pierce, McGinnis, and Taylor ordered that Plaintiff not be helped.
ANALYSIS
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a
complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2).
Moreover, “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.”
Id. 8(d)(1). Plaintiff’s Complaint is 197 handwritten pages long.
Nevertheless, “undue length alone ordinarily does not justify the
dismissal of an otherwise valid complaint.” Stanard v. Nygren, 658
F.3d 792, 797-98 (7th Cir. 2011). “Fat in a complaint can be
ignored, confusion or ambiguity dealt with by means other than
dismissal.” Bennett v. Schmidt, 153 F.3d 516, 518 (7th Cir. 1998).
To sufficiently state a conditions-of-confinement claim,
Plaintiff must allege that the adverse conditions complained of were
“sufficiently serious,” such that the acts or omissions of prison
officials giving rise to these conditions deprived the prisoner of a
“minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.” Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Plaintiff’s allegations that he was denied
showers, hygiene products, blankets, sheets, and clothing while
Page 3 of 10

living in a cell smeared with feces and no cold running water for a
period of three (3) months sufficiently satisfies this requirement.
Next, Plaintiff must show that prison officials were
“deliberately indifferent” to this deprivation. Deliberate indifference
is more than negligence, but does not require the plaintiff to show
that the defendants intended to cause harm. Mayoral v. Sheehan,
245 F.3d 934, 938 (7th Cir. 2001). Liability attaches under the
Eighth Amendment when “the official knows of and disregards an
excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be
aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a
substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the
inference.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant Prentice initially placed him in the cell and that
Defendants DeLong, Pierce, McGinnis, and Taylor were aware of the
alleged conditions Plaintiff was forced to endure. Still, these
defendants refused to remedy the situation and, instead, ordered
other jail staff to ignore Plaintiff’s complaints. Therefore, Plaintiff
has sufficiently alleged a conditions-of-confinement claim.
As for the remaining 87 defendants, it appears that these
defendants either had no ability to remedy Plaintiff’s situation
Page 4 of 10

(medical staff), or were being ordered by their superior officers to do
nothing (jail staff). At this point, Plaintiff’s claims shall proceed
only against Defendants Prentice, DeLong, Pierce, McGinnis, and
Taylor. If, during the discovery phase, it becomes apparent that
additional defendants should be added, Plaintiff may file a motion
to amend complaint seeking to add these defendants.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1)

Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under

28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds that Plaintiff states the
following claim: Eighth Amendment claim for inhumane
conditions of confinement against Defendants Prentice,
DeLong, Pierce, McGinnis, and Taylor. 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. All defendants
except Prentice, DeLong, Pierce, McGinnis, and Taylor shall be
dismissed.
2)

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Request Counsel [4].

Plaintiff has no constitutional or statutory right to counsel in
this case. In considering the Plaintiff’s motion, the Court asks:
Page 5 of 10

(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) (citing Farmer v. Haas, 990
F.2d 319, 322 (7th Cir.1993)). Plaintiff has not shown that he
made reasonable efforts to obtain counsel on his own. A
plaintiff normally does this by attaching copies of letters sent
to attorneys requesting representation and copies of any
responses received. Because Plaintiff has not satisfied the first
prong, the Court does not address the second. Plaintiff’s
Motion [4] is DENIED with leave to renew.
3)

This case is now in the process of service. Plaintiff is

advised to wait until counsel has appeared for Defendants
before filing any motions, in order to give Defendants notice
and an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed
before Defendants' counsel has filed an appearance will
generally be denied as premature. Plaintiff need not submit
any evidence to the Court at this time, unless otherwise
directed by the Court.
Page 6 of 10

4)

The Court will attempt service on Defendants by

mailing each Defendant a waiver of service. Defendants have
60 days from the date the waiver is sent to file an Answer. If
Defendants have not filed Answers or appeared through counsel
within 90 days of the entry of this order, Plaintiff may file a
motion requesting the status of service. After 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 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)

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
Page 7 of 10

under the Federal Rules. The answer and subsequent pleadings
shall be to the issues and claims stated in this Opinion. In
general, an answer sets forth Defendants' positions. The Court
does not rule on the merits of those positions unless and until
a motion is filed by Defendants. Therefore, no response to the
answer is necessary or will be considered.
7)

This District uses electronic filing, which means that,

after Defense counsel has filed an appearance, Defense counsel
will automatically receive electronic notice of any motion or
other paper filed by Plaintiff with the Clerk. Plaintiff does not
need to mail to Defense counsel copies of motions and other
papers that Plaintiff has filed with the Clerk. However, this
does not apply to discovery requests and responses. Discovery
requests and responses are not filed with the Clerk. Plaintiff
must mail his discovery requests and responses directly to
Defendants' counsel. Discovery requests or responses sent to
the Clerk will be returned unfiled, unless they are attached to
and the subject of a motion to compel. Discovery does not
begin until Defense counsel has filed an appearance and the

Page 8 of 10

Court has entered a scheduling order, which will explain the
discovery process in more detail.
8)

Counsel for Defendants is hereby granted leave to

depose Plaintiff at his place of confinement. Counsel for
Defendants shall arrange the time for the deposition.
9)

Plaintiff shall immediately notify the Court, in

writing, of any change in his mailing address and telephone
number. Plaintiff's failure to notify the Court of a change in
mailing address or phone number will result in dismissal of this
lawsuit, with prejudice.
10) If a Defendants fails to sign and return a waiver of
service to the clerk within 30 days after the waiver is sent, the
Court will take appropriate steps to effect formal service
through the U.S. Marshal's service on that Defendant and will
require that Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2).
11) Within 10 days of receiving from Defendants' counsel
an authorization to release medical records, Plaintiff is
directed to sign and return the authorization to Defendants'
counsel.
Page 9 of 10

12) The clerk is directed to enter the standard order
granting Plaintiff's in forma pauperis petition and assessing an
initial partial filing fee, if not already done, and to attempt
service on Defendants pursuant to the standard procedures.
13) Plaintiff’s Motions to Amend Complaint [10][13] are
DENIED with leave to renew. Plaintiff did not attach a
proposed amended complaint to either motion.
14) Plaintiff’s Motions [9][11][12] are DENIED as moot.
ENTERED:

October 7, 2015

FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 10 of 10