Omar v. Robeson et al
Filing
14
MERIT REVIEW OPINION - Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 7/14/2015. (Rule 16 Deadline 9/14/2015.) See written Order. Plaintiffs allegations against the WICC Defendants and Director Godinez and Jane Doe/John Doe IDOC defendants only, as identified in Plaintiff's Complaint pp. 1-8, will proceed in this case and will be set for Merit Review hearing at 9:00 a.m., on August 6, 2015. Plaintiffs allegations as to the Menard defendants, Warden Harrington, Melissa Phoenix, Lt. Hughes, and Officer Hart as identified in Plaintiff's Complaint pp. 8-14, are severed from the instant case. The Clerk is to open a new case: Omar v. Harrington, Phoenix, Hughes and Hart and file a copy of the current complaint in that case. Plaintiff must, howe ver, file an Amended Complaint within 30 days, separately realleging his claims against the Menard defendants as its own distinct complaint. If Plaintiff does not file the amended complaint within the time provided, this claim will be dismissed with out prejudice. If Plaintiff files the Amended Complaint, the case will be transferred to the Southern District of Illinois for a determination as to whether the plaintiff shall be granted leave to proceed in that action in forma pauperis, and for a merit review of his claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A. If Plaintiff does not wish to proceed against the Menard Defendants he may file a motion to voluntarily dismiss within 30 days and will not incur the filing fee. Plaintiffs allegations against Warden Randy Pfister, that he was subjected to inhumane conditions of confinement at Pontiac Correctional Center during the summer of 2014, identified in Plaintiffs Complaint pp. 8-14, are severed from the instant case. The Clerk is to open a new Ce ntral District case: Omar v. Pfister and file a copy of the current complaint in that case. Plaintiff must, however, file an Amended Complaint within 30 days, separately realleging his claims against Defendant Pfister as its own distinct complaint. If Plaintiff does not file the amended complaint within the time provided, this claim will be dismissed without prejudice. If Plaintiff files the Amended Complaint, the case will be scheduled for a determination as to whether the plaintiff shall be granted leave to proceed in that action in forma pauperis, and for a merit review of his claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A. If Plaintiff does not wish to proceed with this action against the Defendant Pfister he may file a motion to voluntarily dismiss within 30 days and will not incur the filing fee. (LN, ilcd)
E-FILED
Tuesday, 14 July, 2015 01:15:36 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BASHIR OMAR,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
15-3130
)
MICHAEL S. ROBESON, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated in Pontiac
Correctional Center, was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The case is now
before the court for a merit review of the 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 Circ. 2013)(citation omitted). The court has reviewed the
complaint and has also held a video merit review hearing in order to give the plaintiff a
chance to personally explain his claims to the court.
The plaintiff filed a [1] complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 naming Western
Illinois Correctional Center (WICC) defendants: Warden Tarry Williams, Jennifer
Johnson, Sgt Robeson, Lt. Fishel and Officers Brooks, Volk and Woodward. He also
names Menard defendants: Warden Harrington, Counselor Melissa Phoenix, Lt.
Hughes, and Officer Hart. Finally, he asserts claims against Pontiac Warden Pfister,
IDOC Director Godinez and Jane Doe/John Does employees of IDOC. Plaintiff alleges
that on May 9, 2013, at WICC, he was subjected to excessive force by Robeson, Fishel,
Brooks, Volk and Woodward and that Warden Harrington witnessed and failed to
intervene. He claims that the defendants, including medical staff member Jennifer
Johnson, were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Plaintiff was
transferred that same day to Menard where he alleges due process and conditions of
Page 1 of 3
conferment claims. He also alleges conditions of confinement claims while at Pontiac in
the summer of 2014. Plaintiff attempts to misjoin unrelated claims. In George v. Smith,
507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007), the Court of Appeals stated that “[u]nrelated claims
against different defendants belong in different suits.” In other words, “multiple claims
against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined
with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Id. at 607.
The Seventh Circuit has instructed that such “buckshot” complaints should be
rejected, either by severing the action into separate lawsuits or by dismissing
improperly joined defendants. Fed.R.Civ.P. 21. As there are potential statute of
limitations issues, the Court will allow Plaintiff’s claims against the WICC Defendants
and IDOC Director Godinez and Jane Doe/John Doe IDOC employees, only, to go
forward in this case. The claims which arose at Menard Correctional Center and at Hill
Correctional Center are severed into two separate actions. Plaintiff shall have an
opportunity to voluntarily dismiss the newly severed case if he does not wish to
proceed on those claims or incur the additional filing fee. If Plaintiff does not
voluntarily dismiss the severed cases, the case against the Menard defendants, Warden
Harrington, Melissa Phoenix, Lt. Hughes and Officer Hart, will be transferred to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois for a determination as to
whether the plaintiff shall be granted leave to proceed in that action in forma pauperis,
and for a merit review of his claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The reason for the
anticipated transfer is that Menard is located in Randolph County, within the
geographical boundaries of the Southern District. The Court finds it appropriate for the
plaintiff’s severed claims to be adjudicated in the district where they arose, as well as
where those defendants are located. See 28 U.S.C. § 93(c); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1404(a). Merit Reviews Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The case against Warden
Pfister, the sole Pontiac defendant, will remain in the Central District of Illinois and will
be assigned a new case number.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED;
1. Plaintiffs allegations against the WICC Defendants and Director Godinez
and Jane Doe/John Doe IDOC defendants only, as identified in Plaintiff’s Complaint
pp. 1-8, will proceed in this case and will be set for Merit Review hearing at 9:00 a.m.,
on August 6, 2015.
2. Plaintiff’s allegations as to the Menard defendants, Warden Harrington,
Melissa Phoenix, Lt. Hughes, and Officer Hart as identified in Plaintiff’s Complaint pp.
8-14, are severed from the instant case. The Clerk is to open a new case: Omar v.
Harrington, Phoenix, Hughes and Hart and file a copy of the current complaint in that
case. Plaintiff must, however, file an Amended Complaint within 30 days, separately
realleging his claims against the Menard defendants as its own distinct complaint. If
Plaintiff does not file the amended complaint within the time provided, this claim will
Page 2 of 3
be dismissed without prejudice. If Plaintiff files the Amended Complaint, the case will
be transferred to the Southern District of Illinois for a determination as to whether the
plaintiff shall be granted leave to proceed in that action in forma pauperis, and for a merit
review of his claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A. If Plaintiff does not wish to proceed
against the Menard Defendants he may file a motion to voluntarily dismiss within 30
days and will not incur the filing fee.
3. Plaintiff’s allegations against Warden Randy Pfister, that he was subjected to
inhumane conditions of confinement at Pontiac Correctional Center during the summer
of 2014, identified in Plaintiff’s Complaint pp. 8-14, are severed from the instant case.
The Clerk is to open a new Central District case: Omar v. Pfister and file a copy of the
current complaint in that case. Plaintiff must, however, file an Amended Complaint
within 30 days, separately realleging his claims against Defendant Pfister as its own
distinct complaint. If Plaintiff does not file the amended complaint within the time
provided, this claim will be dismissed without prejudice. If Plaintiff files the Amended
Complaint, the case will be scheduled for a determination as to whether the plaintiff
shall be granted leave to proceed in that action in forma pauperis, and for a merit review
of his claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A. If Plaintiff does not wish to proceed with this
action against the Defendant Pfister he may file a motion to voluntarily dismiss within
30 days and will not incur the filing fee.
ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2015.
/s/Harold A.Baker
______________________________________
HAROLD A. BAKER
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?