Macias v. Illinois Department of Corrections et al

Filing 8

MERIT REVIEW ORDER entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 11/17/2017. IT IS ORDERED: 1) Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed as a violation of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2) Plaintiff must file an amended complaint clarifyin g his claims in compliancewith this order within 21 days or on or before December 8, 2017. If Plaintiff fails to file his amended complaint by the December 8, 2017 deadline, his case will be dismissed with prejudice.3) Plaintiff's motion for app ointment of counsel is denied with leave to renew when he clarifies his allegations. 5 . 4) Plaintiff's motion for a status update is denied as moot. 7 . 5) The Clerk is to reset the internal merit review deadline in 21 days. The Clerk is also to provide Plaintiff with a blank complaint form to assist him. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER.(SAG, ilcd)

E-FILED

Friday, 17 November, 2017 12:03:41 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JUAN MACIAS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ILLINIOS DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et. al.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 17-1286

MERIT REVIEW ORDER
This cause is before the Court for merit review of the Plaintiff’s complaint. 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 “(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, a pro se prisoner, claims Defendants Illinois Department of Corrections,
Director John Baldwin, former Director Salvador Godinez, Warden Melvin, Chad
Brown, Wexford Health Sources, Inc., John Doe Defendant #1 (mental health director)
and John Doe #2 (medical director) violated his constitutional rights at Pontiac
Correctional Center. Plaintiff has divided his complaint into three claims.
Plaintiff first alleges the Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights based
on the conditions of his confinement in Administrative Detention. Plaintiff says he
suffered with excessive heat, no ventilation, a constant smell of human waste, a leaking

1 

toilet, no hot water, lights on for 24 hours, mold in the shower, no cleaning supplies,
dirty food trays, and an infestation of insects and rodents. Plaintiff says he often felt
sick and itchy while living in the unit.
Plaintiff also makes reference to two additional issues in his living conditions
claim that actually state separate allegations. For instance, Plaintiff says his legal mail
was often opened outside of his presence and the law library system was inadequate.
Plaintiff’s second claim is entitled intentional infliction of emotional distress, but
Plaintiff instead makes several general claims concerning a denial of mental health care.
Plaintiff final claim alleges a due process violation based on his placement in
administrative detention without a proper hearing.
There are several problems with Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff provides only
general allegations without any specific time frames, factual basis, nor specific
Defendants. For instance, Plaintiff has named individuals as Defendants because he
wrote letters to them and they did not respond. However, the fact that Plaintiff sent a
letter does not, by itself, impose liability on a Defendant, particularly a supervisor. See
Johnson v. Snyder, 444 F.3d 579, 583-84 (7th Cir.2006) (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
2 

personal involvement on the part of Defendants based on letters he allegedly wrote
notifying them about the misconduct.”).
Instead, Plaintiff should name Defendants who were directly and personally
involved in his allegations. For instance, if Plaintiff was denied mental health care, he
must state when he requested mental health care or who specifically knew he need
mental health care, when they knew, how they knew, and how they responded.
Plaintiff should also state if he has a diagnosed condition. In addition, while Plaintiff
has provided information concerning the conditions of his confinement, he has not
provided the time frame, who he specifically spoke to about his cell and who refused to
take any action.
Furthermore, if Plaintiff intends to state a claim based on opening his legal mail,
he must allege specific instances when his legal mail was opened. If Plaintiff wishes to
state a claim based on inadequate law library services, he must allege Defendants’
conduct prejudiced a potentially meritorious lawsuit. See Ortiz v. Downey, 561 F.3d 664,
671 (7th Cir.2009); Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d 965, 968 (7th Cir.2006). In other words, a
prisoner's complaint must “spell out, in minimal detail, the connection between the
alleged denial of access to legal materials and an inability to pursue a legitimate
challenge to a conviction, sentence, or prison conditions.” Marshall, 445 F.3d at 968.
It also appears Plaintiff is attempting to combine unrelated claims against
different Defendants in one lawsuit. George v Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.
2007)(“multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1
should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2). For instance, if one
3 

Defendant opened Plaintiff’s legal mail, a different individual denied Plaintiff mental
health care, and a third individual refused to give Plaintiff cleaning supplies, Plaintiff
must not combine the unrelated claims and Defendants in one lawsuit. Instead,
Plaintiff must file separate lawsuits and pay separate filing fees.
For all of the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed as a violation of
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the Court will give Plaintiff
additional time to file an amended complaint in order to allow him to choose the claims
he wishes to pursue in this lawsuit and provide the needed information about those
claims. The proposed amended complaint must stand complete on its own and not
make reference to Plaintiff’s original complaint. For each allegation, Plaintiff must state
when it occurred, who was involved, and a short description of the claim. Plaintiff
must state each intended claim only one time to avoid confusion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed as a violation of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
2) Plaintiff must file an amended complaint clarifying his claims in compliance
with this order within 21 days or on or before December 8, 2017. If Plaintiff fails
to file his amended complaint by the December 8, 2017 deadline, his case will be
dismissed with prejudice.
3) Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied with leave to renew
when he clarifies his allegations. [5].
4) Plaintiff’s motion for a status update is denied as moot. [7].
4 

5) The Clerk is to reset the internal merit review deadline in 21 days. The Clerk
is also to provide Plaintiff with a blank complaint form to assist him.
ENTERED this 17th day of November, 2017.

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

5