Cooley et al v. Baldwin et al

Filing 22

MERIT REVIEW ORDER entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 10/18/2017. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1) Plaintiff's 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 shall hav e 30 days from the entry of this order to file a "First Amended Complaint". The Amended Complaint is not to include any claims by former Plaintiffs Nitz or Rodriguez. The amended complaint is to identify the particular claims each Plaintiff has against each Defendant, named and unnamed, as to the failure to provide adequate mental health treatment and inhumane conditions of confinement. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in the dismissal of this case, without prejudice, f or failure to state a claim. The official capacity claim against Defendants Madigan and Rauner is DISMISSED with prejudice. Defendants Madigan, Rauner, Attorney Mills and Western Illinois Correctional Center are DISMISSED. 2) Plaintiffs' Motions for Status 18 and 21 are rendered MOOT. Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment 19 is DENIED as Defendants have not been issued waivers of service so are not in default. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER.(SAG, ilcd)

E-FILED

Wednesday, 18 October, 2017 10:13:45 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BRIAN COOLEY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT LOVELAND, et al.,
Defendants.

No.: 17-cv-3117-JBM

MERIT REVIEW ORDER
This case was originally filed by four co-Plaintiffs, Brian Cooley, Herman Nitz, Jr.,
Robert Loveland and Edwin Rodriguez. Plaintiffs Rodriguez and Nitz subsequently voluntarily
dismissed their claims. This case proceeds with Plaintiffs Cooley and Loveland asserting a
convoluted 48-page complaint against 10 named Defendants and additional John and Jane Doe
Doctors.
The case is now 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-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Wilson v. Ryker, 451 Fed. Appx. 588, 589 (7th Cir. 2011)
quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
The complaint is interspersed with unrelated filings, and contains many allegations
brought by former Plaintiff’s Nitz and Rodriguez. In addition, Plaintiffs name a variety of

1

entities and individuals not amenable to suit. They name Western Illinois Correctional Center
(“Western”) which is a state agency and not a “person” which can be named in a § 1983 action.
Thomas v. Illinois, 697 F.3d 612, 613 (7th Cir. 2012).
Plaintiffs also seek to name a private attorney, Alan Mills, for failing to provide them a
copy of the complaint in Rasho v. Walker, 07-1298 (C.D.Ill. Nov. 7, 2007). Rasho was a suit by
seriously mentally ill prisoners, brought as a class action. The Plaintiffs here are members of
that class. Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendant Mills was a state actor and, regardless, the
failure to provide a copy of a complaint does not state a constitutional claim. Defendant Mills is
DISMISSED.
Plaintiffs name Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Illinois Governor Bruce
Rauner, apparently in their official capacities. The Eleventh Amendment, however, bars § 1983
claims for money damages against state officials. Wynn v. Southward, 251 F.3d 588, 591 (7th
Cir. 2001); Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985). Plaintiffs’ official capacity claim against
Defendants Madigan and Rauner is DISMISSED with prejudice. Even if Plaintiffs’ complaint is
construed as an individual capacity claim against Defendants Madigan and Rauner, it fails as
Plaintiffs do not claim that Defendants personally participated in the deprivations. Sanville v.
McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir.2001) (“[s]ection 1983 liability is predicated on fault,
so to be liable, a defendant must be “personally responsible for the deprivation of a constitutional
right.”)
Plaintiffs also request injunctive relief which may properly be asserted against state
officials, even though a claim for money damages may not. Ames v. Randle, 933 F. Supp. 2d
1028, 1038 (N.D. Ill. 2013) (“[s]ection 1983 permits official-capacity suits that seek injunctive
relief against state officials). Here, however, Plaintiff name Defendants Madigan and Rauner

2

who are not prison officials who could provide injunctive relief as to the conditions of
confinement. Grayson v. Goetting, No. 15-CV-00198-NJR, 2015 WL 887800, at *4 (S.D. Ill.
Feb. 27, 2015) (“the proper parties in a claim for injunctive relief include the supervisory
government officials who would be responsible for ensuring injunctive relief is carried out.”)
As to the alleged inadequate mental health treatment, the court may not consider it here
as Plaintiffs have already received this relief through the class settlement in Rasho which
provides for comprehensive changes in IDOC’s delivery of mental health care, subject to
identified implementation dates. See Court’s May 23, 2016 Order in Rasho. As there are no
surviving claims against them, Defendants Western, Madigan and Rauner are DISMISSED.
Plaintiffs allege inadequate mental health treatment and inhumane conditions of
confinement against IDOC Director Baldwin, Warden Korte, Wexford, an unidentified Wexford
Director, Cindy Hobrook, Wexford employee Shoemaker, Wexford employee Ashcraft and John
and Jane Doe psychologists and psychiatrists. Plaintiffs do not, however, specify the particular
conditions suffered by each of them or the dates on which they occurred. The also fail to plead
the particulars of their deliberate indifference claim as to any of these Defendants.
The complaint is insufficient to place Defendants on notice of the claims against them or
to provide enough information to identify the Doe Defendants. See Ross Brothers Construction
Co., Inc, v. International Steel Services, Inc. 283 F.3d 867, 872 (7th Cir.2002) (a complaint must
provide adequate notice of plaintiff’s claims against the defendant). The complaint is dismissed,
though Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to replead.
Plaintiffs’ request for class action status is denied as, while Plaintiffs may represent
themselves, they may not represent others. See 28 U.S.C. §1654; Lewis v. Lenc-Smith Mfg. Co.,
784 F.2d 829, 830 (7th Cir. 1986)(per curiam).

3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1)

Plaintiff's 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 shall have 30 days from the entry of this order
to file a “First Amended Complaint”. The Amended Complaint is not to include any claims by
former Plaintiffs Nitz or Rodriguez. The amended complaint is to identify the particular claims
each Plaintiff has against each Defendant, named and unnamed, as to the failure to provide
adequate mental health treatment and inhumane conditions of confinement. Failure to file an
amended complaint will result in the dismissal of this case, without prejudice, for failure to state
a claim. The official capacity claim against Defendants Madigan and Rauner is DISMISSED
with prejudice. Defendants Madigan, Rauner, Attorney Mills and Western Illinois Correctional
Center are DISMISSED.
2)

Plaintiffs’ Motions for Status [18] and [21] are rendered MOOT. Plaintiffs’

Motion for Default Judgment [19] is DENIED as Defendants have not been issued waivers of
service so are not in default.

ENTERED: 10/18/2017
______s/Joe Billy McDade___________
JOE BILLY McDADE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4