Roman v Pfister et al

Filing 13

MERIT REVIEW OPINION - Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 12/16/2016. The plaintiff's complaint is hereby dismissed with leave to plead over. The plaintiff may file an amended complaint, within thirty (30) days of this order, plainly stating h ow his constitutional rights were violated and who was involved in the alleged deprivation. If the plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or follow the court's specific instructions, as outlined above, his case may be dismissed. The clerk is directed to provide the plaintiff with a blank complaint form to assist him. Plaintiff's motions 6 and 8 are DENIED. (Attachments: # 1 Blank Complaint Form) (LN, ilcd)

E-FILED

Friday, 16 December, 2016 03:04:01 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LUIS ROMAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RANDY PFISTER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

16-CV-1422

MERIT REVIEW ORDER
This cause is before the court for a merit review of the plaintiff's claims. The
court is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to “screen” the plaintiff’s complaint, and
through such process to identify and dismiss any legally insufficient claim, or the entire
action if warranted. A claim is legally insufficient if it A(1) is frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from
a defendant who is immune from such relief.@
In reviewing the complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as true,
liberally construing them in the 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)(citation omitted). The Court has reviewed the
Complaint and has also held a merit review hearing in order to give the plaintiff a
chance to personally explain his claims to the Court.
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, and currently incarcerated at the Pontiac
Correctional Center, was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The plaintiff has
submitted a complaint that contains more than 300 pages of documents. The body of
the complaint itself starts on page 249 and consists of a detailed 45-page account of
interactions he had with prison officials from January 2015 through February 2016. The
remaining documents are medical records, copies of grievances, and other
correspondence. The plaintiff alleges a litany of unrelated claims against 32 defendants,
including deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, excessive force, failure to
protect, access-to-the-courts, retaliation, calculated harassment, religion, and other
conditions-of-confinement claims.
The plaintiff’s complaint violates Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
which requires that complaints contain Aa short and plain” statement of the facts. As
1

currently drafted, the plaintiff intermingles several different claims among multiple
defendants in such a manner that it would make responding to the complaint difficult.
The claims asserted involve different legal standards and each would like require
separate attempts to exhaust administrative remedies. A plaintiff “may join, as
independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). However, “unrelated claims against different defendants belong in
different suits” to prevent confusion and ensure compliance with the Prisoner Litigation
Reform Act. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to file an amended complaint
within (30) days that specifically addresses a single constitutional violation against a
certain individual or individuals. Plaintiff’s complaint must be a short and plain
statement of his claims and must not join unrelated defendants and unrelated claims.
See Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011); see also, George, 507 F.3d at 607.
The plaintiff filed a motion for immediate preliminary injunction or temporary
restraining order but doesn’t make any specific allegations, just includes a draft order to
show cause and a volume of exhibits. A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary
and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear
showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972
(1997); W.A. Mack v. General Motors Corp., 260 F.2d 886, 890 (7th Cir. 1958)(holding that
mandatory injunctions are very rarely issued except on the clearest equitable grounds).
Plaintiff’s motion (#6) is denied. The plaintiff has also filed an untitled motion, which
appears to be just a “notice” of more retaliatory conduct and requests no specific relief.
Plaintiff’s motion (#8) is also denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

The plaintiff’s complaint is hereby dismissed with leave to plead over.
The plaintiff may file an amended complaint, within thirty (30) days of
this order, plainly stating how his constitutional rights were violated and
who was involved in the alleged deprivation. If the plaintiff fails to file an
amended complaint or follow the court’s specific instructions, as outlined
above, his case may be dismissed.

2.

The clerk is directed to provide the plaintiff with a blank complaint form
to assist him.

2

3.

Plaintiff’s motions (#6) and (#8) are DENIED.
ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2016.
/s/Harold A. Baker
____________________________________________
HAROLD A. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3