Lisle et al v. Melvin et al

Filing 41

MERIT REVIEW OPINION - Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 1/8/2018. Plaintiffs' complaint is hereby dismissed with leave to replead. Plaintiff Lisle may file an amended complaint in this case within thirty (30) days that complies with the Cour t's instructions above. The clerk is directed to open a new case for each plaintiff naming the same defendants. Each plaintiff in their newly-severed case is granted leave to file an amended complaint within (30) days identifying their claims against specific defendants. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in dismissal of his newly-severed case. The clerk is also directed to: a) File the complaint, respective motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and accompanying text order granting IFP in each newly-severed case; b) File this merit review order in each newly-severed case; and c) Send the standard Notice of Case Opening for each newly-severed case to the respective plaintiff with a copy of this Order and a blank comp laint form to assist him. Plaintiffs' motions for status and clarification 7 26 27 28 are denied as moot. Plaintiffs' also filed several motions seeking injunctive relief 8 23 29 30 32 34 35 38 . To prevail, "the moving party must demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a lack of an adequate remedy at law; and (3) an irreparable harm will result if the injunction is not granted." Foodcomm Int'l v Barry, 328 F.3d 300, 303 (7th Cir. 2003 ) (citations omitted). In his motions, plaintiff generally complains about recent events. All prisoners are required to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Based on copies of grievances Plaintiff attached to his motions, it appea rs that process is available to plaintiff and his remedy at this point lies in the grievance process. Plaintiffs' motions 8 23 29 30 32 34 35 38 are denied. Plaintiff Buie's motion 31 is granted to the extent that it seeks a sta tus and denied as to any other relief requested. Plaintiff Buie was dismissed from this lawsuit on August 11, 2017. Plaintiff Lisle's motion to resubmit complaint 37 is denied as premature as it was filed before entry of this Order. Plaintiff Lisle may resubmit an amended complaint in accordance with this Order. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint 15 is denied for the reasons stated above as it attempts to pursue this case as a class action. (LN, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 08 January, 2018 11:32:01 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
STEVEN D. LISLE, JR.,
CORTEZ RICHARDSON,
KENNETH POWELL, DIONTE
D. BURTON and DENZEL O.
WALKER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MICHAEL MELVIN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

17-CV-1336

MERIT REVIEW ORDER
Plaintiff Steven Lisle and six other plaintiffs filed this lawsuit
alleging excessive force and retaliation. Two plaintiffs were
dismissed for failure to comply with the court’s orders regarding the
filing fees and petitions to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The
case is now before the court for a merit review of the remaining
plaintiffs’ 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 “(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.
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 plaintiffs a chance to
personally explain their claims to the court.
1

Plaintiffs are all housed at Pontiac Correctional Center.
Plaintiff Lisle signed the complaint and attached affidavits with
signatures of the other plaintiffs. A multi-plaintiff complaint must
be signed by all plaintiffs. See Lewis v. LencSmith Mfg. Co., 784 F.2d
829, 831 (7th Cir.1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. The court must strike
any unsigned paper. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). In addition, prisoners
proceeding pro se are not allowed to act as class representatives.
See Huddleston v. Duckworth, 97 F.R.D. 512, 514-55 (N.D. Ind.
1983).
Accordingly, plaintiffs’ complaint is dismissed. The court will
grant plaintiffs an opportunity to submit an amended complaint.
However, the plaintiffs’ respective claims appear to be separate
incidents, and, therefore, the court will sever any claims asserted by
Plaintiffs Richardson, Powell, Burton and Walker from this case and
will open a new case for each plaintiff. See Owens v. Godinez, 860
F.3d 434, 436 (7th Cir. 2017) (“[D]istrict courts should not allow
inmates to flout the rules for joining claims and defendants…or to
circumvent the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s fee requirements by
combining multiple lawsuits into a single complaint.”).
Each plaintiff will be given thirty (30) days to file an amended
complaint in their own respective case. The amended complaint
must state one claim against one set of defendants, and must be a
short and plain statement of the claim for relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
8.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs’ complaint is hereby dismissed with leave to
replead. Plaintiff Lisle may file an amended complaint in
this case within thirty (30) days that complies with the
Court’s instructions above.
2. The clerk is directed to open a new case for each plaintiff
naming the same defendants. Each plaintiff in their newlysevered case is granted leave to file an amended complaint
within (30) days identifying their claims against specific
defendants. Failure to file an amended complaint will result
in dismissal of his newly-severed case.
2

3. The clerk is also directed to:
a) File the complaint, respective motion to proceed in forma
pauperis, and accompanying text order granting IFP in
each newly-severed case;
b) File this merit review order in each newly-severed case;
and
c) Send the standard Notice of Case Opening for each
newly-severed case to the respective plaintiff with a copy
of this Order and a blank complaint form to assist him.
1. Plaintiffs’ motions for status and clarification [7][26][27][28]
are denied as moot.
2. Plaintiffs’ also filed several motions seeking injunctive relief
[8][23][29][30][32][34][35][38]. To prevail, “the moving party
must demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits;
(2) a lack of an adequate remedy at law; and (3) an
irreparable harm will result if the injunction is not granted.”
Foodcomm Int’l v Barry, 328 F.3d 300, 303 (7th Cir. 2003)
(citations omitted). In his motions, plaintiff generally
complains about recent events. All prisoners are required
to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit.
Based on copies of grievances Plaintiff attached to his
motions, it appears that process is available to plaintiff and
his remedy at this point lies in the grievance process.
Plaintiffs’ motions [8][23][29][30][32][34][35][38] are denied.
3. Plaintiff Buie’s motion [31] is granted to the extent that it
seeks a status and denied as to any other relief requested.
Plaintiff Buie was dismissed from this lawsuit on August
11, 2017.
4. Plaintiff Lisle’s motion to resubmit complaint [37] is denied
as premature as it was filed before entry of this Order.
Plaintiff Lisle may resubmit an amended complaint in
accordance with this Order.

3

5. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint [15]
is denied for the reasons stated above as it attempts to
pursue this case as a class action.
Entered this 8th day of January, 2018
/s/Harold A. Baker
___________________________________________
HAROLD A. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4