Alonzo v. Sudlow et al
Filing
11
OPINION entered by Judge Sue E Myerscough on 10/3/13. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint 6 is DENIED with leave to re-file an Amended Complaint, within 21 days of the date of this Order, that Complies with the dictates of this Court's Order. Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel 3 , 4 , 7 are DENIED with leave to re-file in compliance with the dictates of this Court's Order.Plaintiff's second motion to proceed in forma pauperis 8 is DENIED as moot. Copy mailed to Sherwin Alonzo, M27409, Menard Correctional Center, PO Box 1000, Menard, IL 62259. (TC, ilcd)
E-FILED
Thursday, 03 October, 2013 03:41:15 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
URBANA DIVISION
SHERWIN ALONZO,
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER SUDLOW and
KEITH O. ANGLIN,
Warden of Danville Correctional
Center,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No.: 13-2192-SEM-DGB
ORDER
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff Sherwin Alonzo’s
motion to amend complaint, on his motions for appointment of
counsel, and on his second motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
On August 29, 2013, Alonzo filed the above-captioned case,
attempting to assert a violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be
free from cruel and unusual punishment.
Although Alonzo used
the Court’s complaint form, he did not properly complete the form.
Specifically, Alonzo did not identify the Defendants who he wished
to sue in either the caption of the form or in the section of the form
1
that allows a litigant to identify the defendants by name, current job
title, and current work address.
Accordingly, the Court reviewed
the factual allegations contained within Alonzo’s Complaint and
attempted to decipher exactly who he was suing and identified
Defendants Officer Sudlow and Warden Keith Anglin.
On October 1, 2013, Alonzo submitted a second Complaint
that the Court will treat as a motion to amend his Original
Complaint (D/E 6). This Complaint suffers from the same defects
as his first Complaint in that it does not identify any Defendant(s)
in the caption of the Court’s complaint form or in the section of the
form provided to identify the Defendant(s). Based upon the Court’s
review of the factual allegations contained in Alonzo’s second filing,
he apparently intends to include Correctional Officer Gore, Dr.
Talbot, Nurse Steven White, and “Nurse Sandy” as additional
Defendants in this suit.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a short, plain
statement of a plaintiff’s claims showing that he is entitled to relief.
Part of this showing necessarily includes the identity of the
person(s) who allegedly caused the plaintiff harm and whose actions
allegedly entitle the plaintiff to relief.
2
Rather than requiring the
Court to surmise or guess who Alonzo believes violated his
Constitution rights, the Court will deny Alonzo’s motion to amend
his Original Complaint but will give him leave to file another
Complaint within 21 days of the date of this Order. This Amended
Complaint, if Alonzo chooses to file one, should specifically identify
as a Defendant(s) the person or persons Alonzo believes violated his
rights and from whom he seeks relief. Alonzo should identify these
individuals who he wishes to sue by identifying them in the caption
of the Court’s complaint form and by identifying the persons as
Defendants in “Section II” of the Court’s complaint form.
Alonzo
should, then, briefly state what each individual did to violate his
constitutional right and provide an approximate time frame when
these violations occurred.
Alonzo has also filed three motions for the appointment of
counsel (D/E’s 3, 4, & 7).
These motions to request counsel to
voluntarily represent Alonzo pro bono are denied as premature. The
Court cannot consider the merits of the motions until Alonzo shows
that he has made reasonable efforts to find counsel on his own.
Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007).
Typically, a
plaintiff makes this showing by writing to several different law firms
3
and attaching the responses to the motion for appointment of
counsel.
Alonzo’s motions are also premature because this case
has not yet survived a merit review that will determine whether he
states any federal claim(s). Alonzo may renew his motion for the
appointment of counsel after the merit review hearing and upon
demonstrating that he has tried to find counsel on his own.
If
Alonzo renews his motion, he should set forth his educational level,
work experience inside and outside the facility, litigation experience,
and any other facts relevant to whether he is competent to proceed
without an attorney.
Finally, Alonzo has filed a second motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis (D/E 8).
The Court has previously granted
Alonzo’s first motion to proceed in forma pauperis (D/E 2).
Therefore, this second motion is redundant and is denied as moot.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint
(D/E/ 6) is DENIED with leave to re-file an Amended Complaint,
within 21 days of the date of this Order, that Complies with the
dictates of this Court’s Order.
4
2.
Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel (D/E 3, 4,
& 7) are DENIED with leave to re-file in compliance with the
dictates of this Court’s Order.
3.
Plaintiff’s second motion to proceed in forma pauperis
(D/E/8) is DENIED as moot.
ENTER: 10/3/13
FOR THE COURT:
s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?