Medrano v. Melvin et al

Filing 12

MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 4/3/2018. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1) Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint is granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. 10 2) Based on a review of the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A, the Court finds the amended complaint is a violation of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is dismissed. 2) The Court will allow the Plaintiff one FINAL opportunity to amend his complaint. The second amended complaint MUST follow the specific directions followed in this order, and must be filed within 21 days or on or before April 24, 2018. If Plaintiff does not follow the Court's directions or does not file his amended complaint by the April 24, 2018 deadline, this case will be dismissed. 3) The Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is denied with leave to renew once he clarifies his allegations. 11 4) The Clerk of the Court is to provide Plaintiff with a blank complaint form and reset the internal merit review deadline within 21 days of this order. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER.(SAG, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 03 April, 2018 02:19:14 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOSE MEDRANO,
Plaintiff,

MICHAEL MELVIN, et. al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17-1157

MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
This cause is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s motion for leave to
amend his complaint [10] and motion for appointment of counsel. [11].
Plaintiff’ initial complaint was dismissed as a violation of Rule 8 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. See October 5, 2017 Merit Review Order, see also Fed.R.Civ.P.
8. Plaintiff’s 40-page complaint listed 27 Defendants and alleged a variety of violations
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act (RA), the
First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, the Fourteenth
Amendment, and various state law claims. However, Plaintiff had not identified the
correct Defendants, it was difficult to discern the basis of his claims, he repeated claims
already pending in another lawsuit, and it appeared some claims were outside the two
year statute of limitations period. Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed, but he
was given additional time to file an amended complaint clarifying his allegations. See
October 5, 2017 Merit Review Order.

1

Plaintiff has now submitted a proposed amended complaint which has been filed
as a motion for leave to amend. [10]. The motion is granted pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 15. [10].
The Court is still required by 28 U.S.C. §1915A to “screen” the Plaintiff’s
amended 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
“(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.” 28 U.S.C.
§1915A.
Plaintiff’s amended complaint is more concise, but now identifies 28 Defendants
at Pontiac Correctional Center. Plaintiff repeats that he has been diagnosed with severe
degenerative joint disease of the spine, a disk bulge, a sciatic nerve condition, foramina
stenosis, a labrum tear in his shoulder and carpel tunnel. (Amd. Comp., p. 3). He claims
all the conditions interfere with his life activities and qualify as a disability. As a result,
Plaintiff first appears to claim he has a special cuffing permit, a low gallery permit, and
a permit for a cane and wheelchair. (Amd., p. 3-4). However, at other instances in his
amended complaint, Plaintiff seems to allege individuals either ignored his permits, or
the permits had expired, or the permits were never issued.
Plaintiff also continues to allege all of his Defendants had notice of his condition
because he sent them letters including some by certified mail. This is not sufficient.
Plaintiff cannot choose who to hold responsible for his allegations merely by launching
a letter writing campaign. See Johnson v. Snyder, 444 F.3d 579, 583-84 (7th Cir.2006)
2

(letters to Director “insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding
personal responsibility of Director, where Director had delegated responsibility for
reviewing grievances, and there was no evidence that Director had read letters);
Catrabone v. Farley, 1995 WL 646281, at *6 (N.D.Ind. Oct. 10, 1995)( plaintiff “cannot
establish personal involvement and subject an official to liability under § 1983 based
merely upon a ...letter writing campaign.”); Lieberman v. Budz, 2010 WL 369614, at *4
(N.D.Ill.,2010) (“Plaintiff cannot establish personal involvement on the part of
Defendants based on letters he allegedly wrote notifying them about the misconduct.”).
Plaintiff does make reference to the involvement of some individual Defendants
in his amended complaint, but he simply claims they are responsible for events without
explaining how or why. In this case, Plaintiff chose to name a wide range of Defendants
with a wide range of responsibilities. Therefore, the Court cannot assume or infer the
involvement of all Defendants. Plaintiff must explain the specific involvement of each
Defendant in each relevant allegation.
Plaintiff still makes reference to falling in the shower in 2014, but Plaintiff says he
began complaining about the lack of accommodations for his living conditions shortly
after the incident. Nonetheless, his rambling account of events is difficult to follow. In
addition, as the Court previously advised Plaintiff, his claims pursuant to the ADA or
RA cannot proceed against “individual employees of IDOC.” Id. Instead, the proper
defendant is the relevant state department or agency. See 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(b); Peters,
2017 WL 2533652, at *4; Jaros, 684 F.3d at 670 n.2. Plaintiff therefore can only proceed
against Director John Baldwin in his official capacity for any ADA or RA violation.
3

Although Plaintiff was specifically admonished not to repeat any claims pending
in other lawsuits, his second claim again alleges Defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his severe degenerative joint disease of the spine, disk bulge, sciatic nerve
condition, foramina stenosis, labrum tear and carpel tunnel. Plaintiff has a pending
lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois which complains about the medical care
provided for these exact conditions and this lawsuit encompasses his care at Pontiac
Correctional Center. See Medrano v Ghosh, Case No. 13-0084 in the Northern District,
March 19, 2013 Opinion. If Plaintiff is attempting to state a new claim based on injuries
he received after falling in the shower on November 15, 2015, then he must limit his
claim to the specific injuries he suffered to his back and shoulder, not all medical
conditions previously mentioned.
Plaintiff’s final claim is actually several claims alleging “retaliation, conspiracy,
violation of due process in malicious manner.” (Amd Comp., p. 10). Plaintiff appears to
be alleging doctors retaliated against him by falsifying medical records. Plaintiff also
alleges Defendants violated his due process rights when they failed to properly respond
to his grievances.
To state a First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must claim“(1) he
engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment; (2) he suffered a deprivation
that would likely deter First Amendment activity in the future; and (3) the First
Amendment activity was at least a motivating factor in the [d]efendants' decision to
take the retaliatory action.” Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 546 (7th Cir.2009) (internal
quotations omitted). Plaintiff should identify the lawsuit(s) or grievance(s) which he
4

claims sparked the retaliatory action and a general time frame. In addition, Plaintiff has
not clearly explained why he believes his medical records were falsified. If Plaintiff
simply disagrees with the doctor’s opinions or entries, this does not demonstrate fraud.
In addition, Plaintiff can not articulate a due process claim based on his problems
with the grievance procedure. “Prison grievance procedures are not mandated by the
First Amendment and do not by their very existence create interests protected by the
Due Process Clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment. Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953
(7th Cir.2011) (citations omitted). The Constitution requires no procedure at all, and the
failure of state prison officials to follow their own procedures does not, standing alone,
violate the Constitution. Maust v. Headley, 959 F.2d 644, 648 (7th Cir.1992); Shango v.
Jurich, 681 F.2d 1091, 1100–01 (7th Cir.1982).
The Court acknowledges the pro se Plaintiff has made an effort to provide a
more concise pleading with numbered paragraphs in his amended complaint. In
addition, “pro se litigants are held to a lesser pleading standard than other parties,”
Federal Exp. Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 402 (2008); see also McGowan v.. Hulick, 612
F.3d 636, 640 (7th Cir.2010) (noting that the district court must construe a pro se
complaint liberally). However, “where the lack of organization and basic coherence
renders a complaint too confusing to determine the facts that constitute the alleged
wrongful conduct, dismissal is an appropriate remedy.” Stanard, 658 F.3d at 798; Lindell
v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1110 (7th Cir.2003) (“If a complaint's length and lack of
clarity make it unintelligible, dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) is permitted.... though
leave to replead should ordinarily be granted.”)(citations omitted); Vicom, Inc. v.
5

Harbridge Merchant Services, Inc., 20 F.3d 771, 775–76 (7th Cir. 1994)(“ A complaint that is
prolix and/or confusing makes it difficult for the defendant to file a responsive
pleading and makes it difficult for the trial court to conduct orderly litigation.”); Johnson
v. Village of Brooklyn, IL, 2015 WL 4148374, at *3 (S.D.Ill. July 9, 2015) (“Because Plaintiff's
complaint is too muddled for either the Court or Defendants to manage, it shall be
dismissed without prejudice.”)
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide guidance to individuals who wish
to file a complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 states complaints must include “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Furthermore, “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and
direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 also requires the
pleader to “state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as
practicable to a single set of circumstances.”Fed.R.Civ.P. 10 (b) “The primary purpose of
these rules is to give defendants fair notice of the claims against them and the grounds
supporting the claims.” Stanard v. Nygren, 658 F.3d 792, 797 (7th Cir. 2011).
Plaintiff’s complaint does not provide the clear notice of his claims required by
the Federal Rules. Therefore, the Court will again dismiss his amended complaint, but
will allow Plaintiff one final opportunity to file a second amended complaint. To assist
the Plaintiff, he MUST follow the directions provided in this order. Plaintiff must
answer specific questions.
For instance, if the Plaintiff intends to state a claim against Director Baldwin
pursuant to the ADA and RA, he MUST answer the following questions:
6

1) What specific medical conditions did Plaintiff suffer from, when did he have
each, and how did each condition impact his life activities?
2) Did Plaintiff have each of the following: a low gallery permit, a special cuff
permit, and approval for the use of a cane and wheelchair? If not, when and how did he
ask for these accommodations and why were each needed? If he did have any of these
accommodations, when did Plaintiff have these permits and approvals and for what
time period? If any of the permits or approvals was denied, when was it denied?
3) What other specific accommodations did Plaintiff need, why did he need each
accommodation, and when and how did he ask for each accommodation?
If Plaintiff intends to state a claim based on deliberate indifference to his injuries
after he fell in the shower on November 15, 2015, then he must answer the following
questions:
1) When, where, and how did the Plaintiff fall? What injuries did he suffer?
2) Did Plaintiff report the fall? When, how and who did he report the fall to?
3) Did Plaintiff seek medical care? When, who, and how did he ask for medical
care?
4) Did Plaintiff ever see a member of the medical staff? When and who did he
see?
5) Did Plaintiff receive any medical care? When and who was involved in
providing the medical care and what care was received? Did the care received help
address the injuries received in the November 15, 2015 fall?

7

If Plaintiff is attempting to state a retaliation claim, he must answer the following
questions:
1) What was his First Amendment protected activity? In other words, what
specific lawsuit (s) or grievance (s) sparked the retaliatory conduct? When was it filed?
2) Who retaliated against the Plaintiff, when did they retaliate, and what did they
do to retaliate?
If Plaintiff is attempting to state any other claims, he must follow the same
format. He must provide numbered paragraphs, state who was involved, when it
occurred, where it occurred, and briefly what happened.
This Court does 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). However, the Plaintiff is
cautioned “these general principles have some limits.” Stanard, 658 F.3d at 801. Leave
to replead will not be allowed after “repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
amendments previously allowed.” Foman v Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also
Stanard, 658 F.3d at 801 (7th Cir. 2011)(dismissed after plaintiff “had three opportunities
to file a complaint that complied with the rules, yet he failed to follow basic instructions
from the court.”); Lyon v. Brown, 1998 WL 246685 at 2 (7th Cir. May 12, 1998)(dismissed
after court allowed plaintiff third opportunity to cure specific deficiencies and warned
final opportunity to correct deficiencies).

8

Therefore, Plaintiff MUST follow the directions in this order. See Wilson v. Bruce,
2010 WL 4467866 at 2 (7th Cir. Nov. 9, 2010)(“whatever benefits (the plaintiff) may seek
as a pro se litigant, they do not include license to disregard the court's orders.”). The
second amended complaint must include all intended claims and Defendants, and must
not make reference to any previous complaint.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is granted pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. [10]
2) Based on a review of the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A,
the Court finds the amended complaint is a violation of Rule 8 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and is dismissed.
2) The Court will allow the Plaintiff one FINAL opportunity to amend his
complaint. The second amended complaint MUST follow the specific directions
followed in this order, and must be filed within 21 days or on or before
April 24, 2018. If Plaintiff does not follow the Court’s directions or does not file
his amended complaint by the April 24, 2018 deadline, this case will be
dismissed.
3) The Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied with leave to
renew once he clarifies his allegations. [11].
4) The Clerk of the Court is to provide Plaintiff with a blank complaint form and
reset the internal merit review deadline within 21 days of this order.

9

Entered this 3rd day of April, 2018.

s/ James E. Shadid
_________________________________________
JAMES E. SHADID
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10