Williams v. Pierce et al
MERIT REVIEW ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/10/2019. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's amended complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff wil l have 21 days in which to file a second amended complaint which complies with this order. 2. Failure to file a second amended complaint will result in the dismissal of this case, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim. 3. Plaintiff's motions for status 15 and 16 are rendered MOOT. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER.(SAG, ilcd)
Thursday, 10 October, 2019 02:50:13 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
GUY D. PIERCE, et al.,
MERIT REVIEW – AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, files an amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
a host of constitutional violations at the Pontiac Correctional Center (“Pontiac”). The case is
before the Court for a merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In reviewing the Complaint,
the Court accepts the factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in Plaintiff's favor.
Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649-51 (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. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). While the pleading standard does not require “detailed factual
allegations”, it requires “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.” Wilson v. Ryker, 451 Fed. Appx. 588, 589 (7th Cir. 2011) quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Plaintiff has filed a rambling complaint alleging deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need, deliberate indifference to his mental health needs, disruption with his mail,
confiscation of personal property, defamation, violations of due process, entrapment, denial of
legal copies, loss of personal property, denial of yard time, lack of law library time, excessive
noise, unsanitary showers and excessive lighting, on dates relating back to October 2015. This,
despite the fact that the Court had issued a prior merit review order in which it advised Plaintiff
that he could not join numerous unrelated claims in one complaint. See Wheeler v. Wexford, 689
F.3d 680 at *5 (7th Cir 2012). In addition, Plaintiff reasserts previously dismissed due process
claims and claims against several Defendants based solely on their having denied his grievances.
Plaintiff asserts that on October 4, 2015, another inmate, Terrance Jenkins, died while in
the custody of three Pontiac guards. When he learned of it, Plaintiff stated “if they killed him,
they’ll get what they got coming, charges for murder.” Plaintiff asserts that inmates John
Steinbeck, Juan Maysonet and another unknown individual defamed him by providing false and
misleading information to the Intelligence Unit, asserting that Plaintiff would retaliate for the
death of Terrance Jenkins. Plaintiff claims he was wrongfully disciplined as a result of the
inmates’ actions, losing state pay and personal property, likely due to it having been confiscated
by security staff.
Plaintiff pleads a Count II claim against Ian Cox, Lt. Forbes and a Doe Officer for not
conducting an adequate investigation into the charges. He claims, also, that they confiscated his
excess legal boxes. Here, Plaintiff claims, alternately, that Defendants destroyed the documents
and that they shuffled and mixed up the order of the documents. He claims, also, that
Defendants took him out of protective custody, placing him with segregation inmates who were
In Count III, Plaintiff alleges that Kelly Davidson and a John Doe Voice Stress Analysis
(“VSA) Examiner violated his due process rights. On October 27, 2015, Plaintiff was taken to
Internal Affairs for the VSA lie detector test. He claims that after the test was completed the
VSA Examiner approached Defendants Cox and Forbes with fabricated information.
In Count IV, Plaintiff asserts that Adjustment Committee members Salinas and Brown
did not provide him due process at the disciplinary hearing. The November 23, 2015 hearing
was allegedly inadequate as Defendants did not call the witnesses whom Plaintiff had identified
and failed to provide other procedural safeguards. As Plaintiff asserted in both the original and
amended complaints, however, the conviction was later expunged. The Court, in fact, dismissed
this claim at merit review, finding that Plaintiff had received due process by the expungement.
In Count V, Plaintiff reasserts the previously dismissed claim against Defendant Warden
Pierce and Grievance Officer James for denying his grievances. As the Court has already noted,
“the alleged mishandling of [Plaintiff’s] grievances by persons who otherwise did not cause or
participate in the underlying conduct states no claim.” Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th
In Count VI Plaintiff states an unrelated claim that on October 29, 2015, Defendants
Prentice, Tilden and Ojelade refused to issue him a knee sleeve brace while he was in
segregation. This claim, too, was previously dismissed for misjoinder but Plaintiff, undissuaded,
reasserts it here. He also claims that, from October 28, 2015 through April 27, 2016,
Defendants failed to treat a rash and lump on his shoulder.
In Count VII, Plaintiff makes the bare allegation that on unidentified dates, Dr. Allie and
unknown John and Jane Doe Defendants denied him mental health treatment. In Count VIII,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Potts, Sartain and Vilt denied him legal copies and “possibly”
interfered with him retaining an attorney. Here, again, Plaintiff fails to identify the date of the
alleged occurrences. In Count IX, Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to a variety of
unconstitutional conditions of confinement from October 16, 2015 through June 29, 2016.
Here, Plaintiff has pled complaints which occurred from October 14, 2015 through June
29, 2016. Plaintiff did not file his complaint, however, until October 18, 2018, more than two
years after the latest of the events and more than three years after the earliest. The only potential
exceptions are his complaints of lack of mental health treatment and the failure to provide legal
copies where he fails to identify any dates at all. These claims cannot go forward, however, as
there is no identified timeframe and it is likely that these, too, occurred between October 14,
2015 and June 29, 2016.
It appears here that the claims asserted in the amended complaint are barred by the
applicable statute of limitations. Claims brought under ' 1983 are generally governed by a twoyear statute of limitations. Draper v. Martin, 664 F.3d 1110, 1113 (7th Cir. 2011) ("[i]n Illinois,
the statute of limitations period for § 1983 claims is two years, 735 ILCS 5/13-201”). See
also, Bray v. Gary Police Dept. Chief, No. 10-229, 2010 WL 2674531 (N.D. Ind. June 28, 2010)
(“[t]he statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, but if a plaintiff “pleads facts that show his
suit is time-barred or otherwise without merit, he has pleaded himself out of court.”)
The Court notes, however, that the statute of limitations will be tolled during the time the
plaintiff seeks to exhaust administrative remedies. Johnson v. Rivera, 272 F.3d 519, 521-22 (7th
Cir. 2001). While it is likely that the claims are time-barred, Plaintiff will be given an
opportunity to amend. If Plaintiff files a second amended complaint, he is to identify any claims
that were in the grievance process long enough to toll the statute of limitations. Plaintiff is
cautioned that he is not to merely to file 50 or 60 pages of grievance, as done with his original
complaint. Rather, he is to identify any allegations for which the grievance process had not been
completed by October 19, 2016. In the alternative, if Plaintiff’s claims as to lack of mental
health treatment are more current, he may file an amended complaint on this issue, providing the
dates and particulars as to Defendants’ alleged refusal to provide the necessary care. If
Plaintiff’s claims as to the legal copies occurred within the statute of limitations, he may file it as
a separate action as it is unrelated to the claims regarding the mental health treatment.
Plaintiff is not, however, to continue to replead unrelated claims in one complaint. See
Davis v. Harding, 12-cv-559, 2013 WL 6441027, at *2 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 9, 2013) (a plaintiff
may join several defendants in one suit only if the claims arose out of a single transaction and
contain a question of fact or law common to all the defendants); Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a). See also,
Wilson v. Bruce, 400 Fed. Appx. 106 (7th Cir. 2010) (upholding the District Court's finding of
misjoinder). “Though all are based on events that allegedly took place during [Plaintiff's]
detention, the...claims otherwise share no common questions of law or fact.” Id. at 108. Plaintiff
is placed on notice that, if he files a second amended complaint and does not comply with these
instructions, his complaint will be dismissed and he may be precluded from filing a subsequent
amendment. This is so, as courts are not required to allow a party to replead after “repeated
failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed.” Stanard v Nygren, 658 F.3d
792, 801 (7th Cir. 2011)(dismissing third amended complaint for plaintiff’s failure “to follow
basic instructions from the court.”)
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
Plaintiff’s amended complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff will have 21 days in which to file a
second amended complaint which complies with this order.
Failure to file a second amended complaint will result in the dismissal of this
case, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiff’s motions for status  and  are rendered MOOT.
s/Michael M. Mihm
MICHAEL M. MIHM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?