Moore v. Pierce

Filing 26

MERIT REVIEW--AMENDED COMPLAINT: This case shall proceed solely as a conditions of confinement claim against Defendant Pierce. Plaintiff's Motions for Status 24 and 25 are rendered MOOT by this order. (Rule 16 Deadline 8/25/2017.) (SEE WRITTEN MERIT REVIEW.) Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 6/26/2017. (GL, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 26 June, 2017 11:26:20 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JEROME MOORE,
Plaintiff,
v.
GUY PIERCE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.: 16-cv-1110-SEM

MERIT REVIEW –AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed an amended complaint
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging inhumane conditions of
confinement at the Pontiac Correctional Center. 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. 2103). 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).
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges that Defendant Warden
Pierce violated his Eighth Amendment rights by ordering him to be
Page 1 of 6 

placed in the South Mental Health Segregation Unit where he was
subjected to atypical and harsh conditions of confinement. Plaintiff
claims that, for a two month period he was in his cell 24-hours per
day, was handcuffed while escorted, did not receive mental health
treatment, was denied commissary privileges, and was allowed only
one shower per week.
Punishments which are “incompatible with ‘the evolving
standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing
society’’’, violate the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 102 (1976). To make out an inhumane conditions of
confinement claim a Plaintiff must allege an extreme deprivation,
[“b]ecause routine discomfort is ‘part of the penalty that criminal
offenders pay for their offenses against society’, only those
deprivations denying ‘the minimal civilized measure of life's
necessities' are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth
Amendment violation.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992)
(internal citations omitted).
It is unclear that any of these conditions, viewed alone, would
be sufficient to establish a Constitutional violation. However, a
combination of multiple conditions “may violate the Constitution in
Page 2 of 6 

combination when they have a ‘mutually enforcing effect that
produced the deprivation of a single, identifiable human need.’”
Budd v. Motley, 711 F.3d 840, 842 (7th Cir. 2013)(quoting Wilson v.
Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 304 (1991). Plaintiff’s inhumane conditions of
confinement claim against Warden Pierce will go forward.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.

This case shall proceed solely as a conditions of

confinement claim against Defendant Pierce. Any claims not
identified will not be included in the case, except in the Court's
discretion upon motion by a party for good cause shown, or by leave
of court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
2.

Plaintiff’s Motions for Status [24] and [25] are rendered

MOOT by this order.
3.

The Clerk is directed to send to each Defendant

pursuant to this District's internal procedures: 1) a Notice of
Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service; 2) a Waiver of Service; 3)
a copy of the Complaint; and 4) a copy of this Order.
4.

If a Defendant 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 on that Defendant
Page 3 of 6 

and will require that Defendant pay the full costs of formal service
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2). If a Defendant
no longer works at the address provided by Plaintiff, the entity for
which Defendant worked at the time identified in the Complaint
shall provide to the Clerk Defendant's current work address, or, if
not known, Defendant's forwarding address. This information will
be used only for purposes of effecting service. Documentation of
forwarding addresses will be maintained only by the Clerk and shall
not be maintained in the public docket nor disclosed by the Clerk.
5.

Defendants shall file an answer within the prescribed by

Local Rule. A Motion to Dismiss is not an answer. The answer it to
include all defenses appropriate under the Federal Rules. The
answer and subsequent pleadings are to address the issues and
claims identified in this Order.
6.

Plaintiff shall serve upon any Defendant who has been

served, but who is not represented by counsel, a copy of every filing
submitted by Plaintiff for consideration by the Court, and shall also
file a certificate of service stating the date on which the copy was
mailed. Any paper received by a District Judge or Magistrate Judge

Page 4 of 6 

that has not been filed with the Clerk or that fails to include a
required certificate of service will be stricken by the Court.
7.

Once counsel has appeared for a Defendant, Plaintiff

need not send copies of filings to that Defendant or to that
Defendant's counsel. Instead, the Clerk will file Plaintiff's document
electronically and send notice of electronic filing to defense counsel.
The notice of electronic filing shall constitute notice to Defendant
pursuant to Local Rule 5.3. If electronic service on Defendants is
not available, Plaintiff will be notified and instructed accordingly.
8.

Counsel for Defendants is hereby granted leave to depose

Plaintiff at Plaintiff's place of confinement. Counsel for Defendants
shall arrange the time for the depositions.
9.

Plaintiff shall immediately notice the Court of any change

in mailing address or phone number. The Clerk is directed to set
an internal court deadline 60 days from the entry of this Order for
the Court to check on the status of service and enter scheduling
deadlines.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO:

Page 5 of 6 

1) ATTEMPT SERVICE ON DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO
THE STANDARD PROCEDURES; AND,
2) SET AN INTERNAL COURT DEADLINE 60 DAYS FROM
THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER FOR THE COURT TO CHECK ON
THE STATUS OF SERVICE AND ENTER SCHEDULING
DEADLINES.

LASTLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT IF A DEFENDANT 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).

_ 6/26/2017
ENTERED

____s/Sue E. Myerscough______
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 6 of 6