Donley v. Hammers et al

Filing 14

MERIT REVIEW OPINION Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 2/5/2018. See written Order.Plaintiffs motion to amend complaint (#11) is granted.Clerk is directed to docket the amended complaint attached toplaintiffs motion. The clerk is directed to ente r the standard qualifiedprotective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability andAccountability Act. The clerk is directed to terminate Defendants Baca,Johnson, Meyers, Drew Meyers, and Robbie Johnson.The clerk is directed to attempt service on the defendantspursuant to the standard procedures.Plaintiffs motions 10 13 seeking a status of this caseare denied as moot. (ED, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 05 February, 2018 11:09:21 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BOB DONLEY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JUSTIN HAMMERS, et al.
)
)
Defendants. )

17-1343

MERIT REVIEW ORDER
This case is before the court for a merit review of the plaintiff’s
amended 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.
In reviewing the amended 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).
Plaintiff alleges that, since filing a petition for writ of habeas
corpus, Defendants Bleeker, Hammond, Williams and Hanlin, all
prison guards, have retaliated against him by (1) forcing him to
keep his legal documents in his property box, rather than on a shelf
in his cell; (2) writing false disciplinary reports against him and
yelling at him for walking out of line despite other inmates doing
the same thing; (3) scattering his belonging around his cell during

shakedowns; (4) seizing property he was authorized to have; (5) not
giving him adequate law library time; and (6) separating him from
his preferred cellmate, then assigning him to share a cell with
several gang members and later with an inmate who smells bad and
openly flouts prison rules.
Plaintiff also alleges that prison psychologists have failed to fix
his roommate problems to his satisfaction, that an Assistant
Attorney General representing the warden in his habeas petition
has disobeyed court orders in another case, and that he has sent
grievances to Warden Hammers, apparently without receiving a
response.
Plaintiff states a retaliation claim against Defendant Bleeker,
Hammond, Williams, and Hanlan. Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541,
553 (7th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff also states a plausible retaliation
claim against Warden Hammers based upon the warden’s apparent
knowledge of the situation gained via the grievance process and the
alleged failure to remedy the problem. Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d
768, 781 (7th Cir. 2015).
The remaining claims will be dismissed without prejudice as,
although Plaintiff attempts to link the claims in his amended
complaint under a general “campaign of harassment,” Plaintiff’s
claims are either unrelated to the actions of Defendants Bleeker,
Hammond, Williams, Hanlan, and Hammers, or they involve
unrelated claims. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.
2007) (“Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in
different suits.”); 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.”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint (#11) is granted.
Clerk is directed to docket the amended complaint attached to
plaintiff’s motion.

2.
Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, the court finds that the plaintiff states an First
Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants Bleeker,
Hammond, Williams, Hanlan, and Hammers. Any additional claims
shall not be included in the case, except at the court’s discretion on
motion by a party for good cause shown or pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
3.
This case is now in the process of service. The plaintiff is
advised to wait until counsel has appeared for the defendants
before filing any motions, in order to give the defendants notice and
an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed before
defendants' counsel has filed an appearance will generally be denied
as premature. The plaintiff need not submit any evidence to the
court at this time, unless otherwise directed by the court.
4.
The court will attempt service on the defendants by
mailing each defendant a waiver of service. The defendants have 60
days from the date the waiver is sent to file an answer. If the
defendants have not filed answers or appeared through counsel
within 90 days of the entry of this order, the plaintiff may file a
motion requesting the status of service. After the defendants have
been served, the court will enter an order setting discovery and
dispositive motion deadlines.
5.
With respect to a defendant who no longer works at the
address provided by the plaintiff, the entity for whom that
defendant worked while at that address shall provide to the clerk
said defendant's current work address, or, if not known, said
defendant's forwarding address. This information shall be used only
for effectuating service. Documentation of forwarding addresses
shall be retained only by the clerk and shall not be maintained in
the public docket nor disclosed by the clerk.
6.
The defendants shall file an answer within 60 days of the
date the waiver is sent by the clerk. A motion to dismiss is not an
answer. The answer should include all defenses appropriate under
the Federal Rules. The answer and subsequent pleadings shall be
to the issues and claims stated in this opinion. In general, an

answer sets forth the defendants' positions. The court does not rule
on the merits of those positions unless and until a motion is filed by
the defendants. Therefore, no response to the answer is necessary
or will be considered.
7.
This district uses electronic filing, which means that,
after defense counsel has filed an appearance, defense counsel will
automatically receive electronic notice of any motion or other paper
filed by the plaintiff with the clerk. The plaintiff does not need to
mail to defense counsel copies of motions and other papers that the
plaintiff has filed with the clerk. However, this does not apply to
discovery requests and responses. Discovery requests and
responses are not filed with the clerk. The plaintiff must mail his
discovery requests and responses directly to defendants' counsel.
Discovery requests or responses sent to the clerk will be returned
unfiled, unless they are attached to and the subject of a motion to
compel. Discovery does not begin until defense counsel has filed an
appearance and the court has entered a scheduling order, which
will explain the discovery process in more detail.
8.
Counsel for the defendants is hereby granted leave to
depose the plaintiff at his place of confinement. Counsel for the
defendants shall arrange the time for the deposition.
9.
The plaintiff shall immediately notify the court, in
writing, of any change in his mailing address and telephone
number. The plaintiff's failure to notify the court of a change in
mailing address or phone number will result in dismissal of this
lawsuit, with prejudice.
10. If a defendant fails to sign and return a waiver of service
to the clerk within 30 days after the waiver is sent, the court will
take appropriate steps to effect formal service through the U.S.
Marshals service on that defendant and will require that defendant
to pay the full costs of formal service pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(d)(2).
11. The clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified
protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act.

12. The clerk is directed to terminate Defendants Baca,
Johnson, Meyers, Drew Meyers, and Robbie Johnson.
13. The clerk is directed to attempt service on the defendants
pursuant to the standard procedures.
14. Plaintiff’s motions [10][13] seeking a status of this case
are denied as moot.
Entered this 5th day of February, 2018
/s/Harold A. Baker
___________________________________________
HAROLD A. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE