Jones v. Bartlett et al

Filing 14

MERIT REVIEW ORDER: Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice to filing an amended complaint by May 22, 2017, in accordance with this order. Plaintiff's motion for appointed counsel is denied with leave to renew after he has made reasonable efforts to find counsel on his own. (SEE WRITTEN ORDER.) Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 5/4/2017. (GL, ilcd)

E-FILED

Thursday, 04 May, 2017 12:14:58 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WALTER LEE JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
STEVE P. BARTLETT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

17-CV-3096

ORDER
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit after his release from prison, so his
Complaint is not subject to a merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A. However, a ruling is still needed on Plaintiff’s petition to
proceed in forma pauperis.
The "privilege to proceed without posting security for costs and
fees is reserved to the many truly impoverished litigants who,
within the District Court's sound discretion, would remain without
legal remedy if such privilege were not afforded to them." Brewster
v. North Am. Van Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 1972).
Additionally, a court must dismiss cases proceeding in forma
pauperis "at any time" if the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
Page 1 of 4

state a claim, even if part of the filing fee has been paid. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(d)(2). Accordingly, this Court grants leave to proceed in
forma pauperis only if the complaint states a federal claim.
Plaintiff lists 12 defendants and describes many unrelated
events which occurred while Plaintiff was out of prison and while
Plaintiff was in prison in Jacksonville and Centralia. His allegations
include the alleged revocation of his parole without procedural due
process, his incarceration beyond his out-date, a deficient prison
law library, the denial of hygiene supplies, inadequate dental
treatment, retaliation, illegal search and seizure, false or unfair
disciplinary reports, an improper strip search, and unconstitutional
conditions of confinement.
These claims are not properly joined in one action. “A litigant
cannot throw all of his grievances, against dozens of different
parties, into one stewpot.” Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.,
689 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2012); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605,
607 (7th Cir. 2007)(“Unrelated claims against different defendants
belong in different suits . . .”) The federal rules allow the joinder of
defendants in claims arising from same transaction or occurrence
or unrelated claims against the same defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18,
Page 2 of 4

20. That all of the alleged adverse events occurred during Plaintiff’s
incarceration or are related to his incarceration does not mean
those events “arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or
series of transactions or occurrences.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A).
Plaintiff also does not explain how each Defendant was personally
involved in causing the adverse events.
Additionally, Plaintiff states that he has filed a lawsuit about
some of these same allegations in the Illinois Court of Claims, a
federal habeas action, and a case in Vermilion County Circuit Court
about the calculation of his sentence. If rulings in those actions
determined the merits of those claims, then Plaintiff may not
relitigate the claims here or appeal those rulings to this Court.
Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed, with leave to file an
amended complaint limiting his claims to those arising out of the
same transaction or occurrence and explaining how each defendant
was involved in that transaction or occurrence. For example,
Plaintiff’s claim about his dental treatment would likely be against
the dentist and could not be combined with Plaintiff’s claim about
wrongful discipline, over which the dentist has no control. If
Plaintiff’s amended complaint involves claims already ruled on by
Page 3 of 4

other courts, Plaintiff should attach those rulings to his amended
complaint.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice to filing
an amended complaint by May 22, 2017, in accordance
with this order.
(2) Plaintiff’s motion for appointed counsel is denied with
leave to renew after he has made reasonable efforts to find
counsel on his own. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55
(7th Cir. 2007). This typically requires writing to several
lawyers and attaching the responses. 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.
ENTERED: May 4, 2017
FOR THE COURT:

___s/Sue E. Myerscough_____
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 4 of 4