Spiller v. McCoy et al

Filing 18

MERIT REVIEW ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/5/2017. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:1) Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant toFed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff shall h ave 30 days from the entry ofthis order to file an amended complaint. If Plaintiff proceeds he is to identify the complaint as aSecond Amended Complaint. If he does not file within the time specified, this case will bedismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff's amended complaint will replace Plaintiff'soriginal complaint in its entirety and must contain all allegations against all Defendants.Piecemeal amendments are not accepted. 2) Plaintiffs Motion for Status 17 is rendered MOOT. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER.(SL, ilcd)

E-FILED

Friday, 05 May, 2017 02:32:43 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EDWARD F. SPILLER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
SHERIFF MICHAEL McCOY, et al.,
Defendants.

No.: 16-cv-1266-MMM

MERIT REVIEW AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, files an amended complaint under § 1983 alleging inhumane
conditions of confinement at the Peoria County Jail. Plaintiff names Peoria County Sheriff
Michael McCoy, Deputy Sheriff Joseph Needham and Head Nurse Sally. 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, 649-51 (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. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). While the pleading standard does not require “detailed factual
allegations”, it requires “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.” Wilson v. Ryker, 451 Fed. Appx. 588, 589 (7th Cir. 2011) quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Plaintiff alleges that he has been experiencing outbreaks of athlete’s foot while at the Jail.
He believes the condition is caused by the “Bob Barker B.B.C.” shoes provided to inmates. He
claims that the shoes are repeatedly reissued to new inmates without being cleaned. Plaintiff

1

claims that the prison jumpsuits are not adequately cleaned and sometimes contain menstrual
bloodstains.
Plaintiff alleges that the shower in G-1 is filthy, contains mold and mildew and that one
of the walls is green. He claims that he and the other inmates clean the showers daily but that the
cleaning products are ineffective. Plaintiff experiences shortness of breath which he believes is
an indication there that there is lead paint on the walls of his cell. He notes, further, that the
heating vents are clogged with dust. Lastly, he complains of having to pay a $10 co-pay to
receive medical care for treatment he believes related to the conditions of confinement.
Plaintiff’s original complaint had been dismissed as he did not identify any of the three
Defendants he held liable for the alleged infractions. Plaintiff’s amended complaint also fails to
identify the parties responsible. He claims only that he spoke to Sheriff McCoy “about this
incident,” not specifying which incident. He claims, additionally, that he wrote relevant
grievances. This is not enough to establish personal liability. Public officials do not have a freefloating obligation to put things to rights[.] Bureaucracies divide tasks; no prisoner is entitled to
insist that one employee do another's job.... Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 595 (7th Cir.
2009). Furthermore, the “ alleged mishandling of [plaintiff’s] grievances by persons who
otherwise did not cause or participate in the underlying conduct states no claim.” Owens v.
Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011). “[T]o be liable under [Section] 1983, an individual
defendant must have caused or participated in a constitutional deprivation.” Pepper v. Village of
Oak Park, 430 F.3d 809, 810 (7th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).
Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed and he will be given a final opportunity to replead,
within 30 days. If he files an amended complaint .e is to identify each of the individuals whom
he holds responsible for each infraction.

2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1)

Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of
this order to file an amended complaint. If Plaintiff proceeds he is to identify the complaint as a
Second Amended Complaint. If he does not file within the time specified, this case will be
dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff's amended complaint will replace Plaintiff's
original complaint in its entirety and must contain all allegations against all Defendants.
Piecemeal amendments are not accepted.
2)

_5/5/2017
ENTERED

Plaintiffs Motion for Status [17] is rendered MOOT.

s/Michael M. Mihm
MICHAEL M. MIHM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3