Donley v. Hammers et al

Filing 9

MERIT REVIEW OPINION - Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 9/5/2017. 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 that complies with the Courts instructions above. In short, plead more facts. If the plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or follow the courts specific instructions, as outlined in this order, his case may be dismissed. The clerk is directed to provide the plaintiff with a blank complaint form to assist him. Plaintiff's motion for counsel 5 is denied, with leave to renew after plaintiff has filed his amended complaint and upon demonstrating that he made attempts to hire his own counsel. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff included a list of attorneys to whom he alleges he sent requests for representation. A plaintiff, however, usually shows he made an attempt to obtain counsel by writing to several lawyers and attaching the responses. Plaintiff has not done that. If Plaintiff renews his motion, he should set forth how far he has gone in school, any jobs he has held inside and outside of prison, any classes he has taken in prison, and any prior litigation experience he has. Plaintiff's motion to request criminal charges 8 is denied. The court does not have the authority to bring criminal charges against any individual. (LN, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 05 September, 2017 04:07:42 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BOB DONLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUSTIN HAMMERS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

17-CV-1343

MERIT REVIEW ORDER
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, and currently incarcerated at
Illinois River Correctional Center, was granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. The case is now before the court for a merit review
of 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 “(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 plaintiff a chance to
personally explain his claims to the court.
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging that prison officials have retaliated against him for filing
motions for injunctive relief in another case by forcing him to keep
his legal papers in his property box, moving him to a different cell,
not giving him a sufficient number of law library passes, denying
1

mental health treatment, and incidents where prison officials
deprived other inmates of various things.
Plaintiff alleges he has filed motions to stop the harassment
with the same allegations in the Rasho v. Elyea class action in front
of Judge Mihm.
Plaintiff’s allegations are scattershot at best, involving several
different defendants and unrelated claims. He appears to be
simultaneously pursuing relief for these alleged violations in two
different lawsuits, and from his allegations, it appears that Judge
Mihm has addressed some of plaintiff’s concerns. Plaintiff may
state a claim for relief; however, plaintiff will need to more fully
address those claims in an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s amended
complaint must be a short and plain statement of the claim for
relief and must identify the individuals responsible for the alleged
deprivation and specifically state what each defendant did or did
not do to violate plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
8.
Additionally, plaintiff is advised that he may not pursue
unrelated claims against a different set of defendants in the same
lawsuit. 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.

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 that complies with
the Court’s instructions above. In short, plead more
facts. If the plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or
follow the court’s specific instructions, as outlined in this
order, 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 motion for counsel [5] is denied, with leave to
renew after plaintiff has filed his amended complaint and
upon demonstrating that he made attempts to hire his
own counsel. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th
Cir. 2007). Plaintiff included a list of attorneys to whom
he alleges he sent requests for representation. A
plaintiff, however, usually shows he made an attempt to
obtain counsel by writing to several lawyers and
attaching the responses. Plaintiff has not done that. If
Plaintiff renews his motion, he should set forth how far
he has gone in school, any jobs he has held inside and
outside of prison, any classes he has taken in prison,
and any prior litigation experience he has.

4.

Plaintiff’s motion to request criminal charges [8] is
denied. The court does not have the authority to bring
criminal charges against any individual.
Entered this 5th day of September, 2017
/s/Harold A. Baker
___________________________________________
HAROLD A. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3