Holmes v. Williamson et al
Filing
21
OPINION (See Written Opinion): 1)Plaintiff's motion to amend his Complaint is granted (d/e 20). 2) The clerk is directed to add Bill Smith as a defendant. The clerk is further directed to send a waiver of service to Defendant Smith, along with a copy of this Complaint, Plaintiff's motion to amend, and this order. The scheduling conference remains set for November 7, 2011 at 9:30 a.m.. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 8/24/2011. (VM, ilcd)
E-FILED
Wednesday, 24 August, 2011 09:51:23 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
LARRY M. HOLMES
Plaintiff,
v.
SHERIFF NEIL WILLIAMSON,
ENOS BRENTS, TERRY DURR,
WILLIAM STRAYER, SCOTT
LOFTUS, CHRIS DOETSCH,
THOMAS PIPKIN, BRENT FERRO,
GREGORY CLEMONDS, BRYANT
CAREY, TODD KUERGER, and
ROB BEROLA,
Defendants,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
11-CV-3230
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
On July 27, 2011, the Court conducted a merit review of Plaintiff’s
Complaint and concluded that he stated a First Amendment claim of retaliation as
well as a due process claim based on various alleged incidents and conditions of
confinement at the Sangamon County Jail. This case is currently in the process of
service.
On August 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed what he titles an exhibit to his Complaint.
Page 1 of 3
(d/e 20). This pleading was docketed as a motion for leave to file an amended
complaint because the exhibit contains supplemental allegations of retaliation
against some current defendants. The exhibit also asserts a new claim of excessive
force and retaliation against a new defendant, Sergeant Bill Smith. Smith allegedly
slammed Plaintiff’s face against the wall twice and punched him in the ribs several
times, allegedly in retaliation for Plaintiff’s First Amendment activities.
Plaintiff states a plausible claim against Bill Smith for excessive force and
retaliation. Smith will accordingly be added as a defendant. The Court notes,
however, that Plaintiff states no claim regarding the opening of his legal mail from
the clerk. Court mail generally may be opened outside an inmate's presence
because court mail is a public document and does not convey confidential
information. Guarjardo-Palma v. Martinson, 622 F.3d 801, 806 (7th Cir.
2010)(opening of letters from courts and agencies outside of the plaintiff’s
presence did not state constitutional claim). No plausible inference arises that the
mail from the clerk contained any sensitive, non-public information. Further, even
if the mail were confidential legal mail, one instance of opening it outside of
Plaintiff’s presence is insufficient to make out a constitutional claim. Id.
Typically the Court requires a Plaintiff seeking to amend his Complaint to
file an amended complaint that completely replaces the original complaint. In this
Page 2 of 3
instance, though, requiring an amended complaint will only unnecessarily delay the
case. Plaintiff’s new allegations are concise enough, and the case is still in the
process of service.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1)
Plaintiff’s motion to amend his Complaint is granted (d/e 20).
2)
The clerk is directed to add Bill Smith as a defendant. The clerk is
further directed to send a waiver of service to Defendant Smith, along
with a copy of this Complaint, Plaintiff’s motion to amend, and this
order. The scheduling conference remains set for November 7, 2011
at 9:30 a.m..
ENTERED: August 24, 2011
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 3 of 3
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?