Augusta v. Employees of I.D.O.C. et al

Filing 7

MERIT REVIEW OPINION - Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 12/19/2016. (Rule 16 Deadline 2/17/2017.) The clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The cler k is directed to terminate Mike Funk, Employees of I.D.O.C. and Employees of Knox County Board as defendants. The clerk is directed to attempt service on the remaining defendants pursuant to the standard procedures. Plaintiff Charles' claims ar e severed from this case. The clerk is directed to open a new case entitled, Dallas Charles v. Lou Glossip and Nurse Doe. The clerk is also directed to file the complaint from this case and this order in the new case, and enter the standard text order regarding payment of the filing fee or filing a petition to proceed in forma pauperis. (LN, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 19 December, 2016 03:18:25 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
QUENNEL AUGUSTA,
Plaintiff,
v.
EMPLOYEES OF I.D.O.C., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

16-CV-4190

MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, a pretrial detainee at the Knox County Jail, was
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The case is now before the court for a merit
review of 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 Cir. 2013)(citation omitted). The court has reviewed the
complaint and has also held a merit review hearing in order to give the plaintiff a
chance to personally explain his claims to the court.
Two plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against administrators at the Knox County Jail
and a member of the Illinois Department of Corrections’ Jail and Detention Standard
Unit. Plaintiff Augusta alleges that he is subjected to lockdowns for 28 hours at a time,
forced to sleep on “insufficient cement” on a flat mat in his cell, and forced to use a
communal bathroom in front of other inmates when allowed out of his cell. As a result,
he alleges injuries to his back, legs, and arms for having to endure these conditions for
more than eight (8) months. Plaintiff Augusta also alleges he is not provided with a
sufficient amount of food, causing him to lose 40 pounds. He alleges commissary is
expensive. Plaintiff August alleges that he has been denied visitation with his family
because there are not enough computer screens to accommodate all inmates, copies of
grievances because the grievance system is now electronic, magazines and newspapers,
and a telephone call with his lawyer. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that he is charged $5/day
for a housing fee and has not been reimbursed for the times he was later found not
guilty.

Plaintiff Charles has not yet paid the filing fee or filed a petition to proceed in forma
pauperis. The plaintiffs state they are filing a class action lawsuit; however, prisoners
proceeding pro se are not allowed to act as class representatives. See Huddleston v.
Duckworth, 97 F.R.D. 512, 514-55 (N.D. Ind. 1983). When a case has multiple prisoner
plaintiffs, each plaintiff must submit a petition to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the
$400 filing fee. Boriboune v. Berge, 391 F.3d 852, 855-56 (7th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff Charles
alleges medical staff has refused to allow him to see a doctor for his back injuries and a
dentist for his dental problems. Plaintiff Charles also alleges that he has been placed on
lockdown with no explanation.
Plaintiff Augusta states a claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement
for the allegations that he is subjected to 28-hour lockdowns with nothing but a flat mat
to sleep on for 8 months. Plaintiff Augusta also states a claim for the alleged lack of
sufficient quantities of food, but not as it relates to the type of food or the manner in
which it is served. Complaints of cold, poorly prepared, or even food that occasionally
contains foreign objects do not rise to the level of constitutional deprivation. See Drake
v. Velasco, 207 F.Supp.2d 809, 812 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (citing Hamm v. DeKalb County, 774
F.2d 1567, 1575 (11th Cir. 1985)).
Plaintiff Augusta does not state a claim for the denial of visitation because of the
lack of computers to accommodate every inmate, or the forced use of communal
bathrooms, as such conditions could be ordinarily contemplated by confinement within
the jail, and therefore not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Kentucky Dep’t
of Corr. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 461 (1989). In addition, plaintiff has no constitutional
right to a grievance process and the fact that the jail has chosen to provide one via
electronic means does not implicate constitutional concerns. Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81
F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir. 1996). To the extent that plaintiff alleges he was denied a
telephone call to his attorney, plaintiff alleges only that he would not be able to call
during his attorney’s office hours. No inference arises that Plaintiff Augusta’s criminal
case was adversely affected as a result.
Plaintiff Charles states a plausible claim for deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need, however, his claims should be severed because his claims arise from a
separate set of facts. Plaintiff Charles will also have to pay the filing fee in full or file a
petition to proceed in forma pauperis.
Finally, defendants Employees of the Illinois Department of Corrections, Mike
Funk, and Employees of the Knox County Board will be dismissed. Neither plaintiff is
incarcerated in the Illinois Department of Corrections and Plaintiff makes no allegations
that members of the Knox County Board personally caused his constitutional
deprivation. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009); Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987,
991 (7th Cir. 1996).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1.
Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the
court finds that the Plaintiff Augusta states an Eighth Amendment claim for conditions
of confinement against defendants David Clague and Lou Glossip. Any additional
claims shall not be included in the case, except at the court’s discretion on motion by a
party for good cause shown or pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
2.
This case is now in the process of service. The plaintiff is advised to wait
until counsel has appeared for the defendants before filing any motions, in order to give
the defendants notice and an opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed
before defendants' counsel has filed an appearance will generally be denied as
premature. The plaintiff need not submit any evidence to the court at this time, unless
otherwise directed by the court.
3.
The court will attempt service on the defendants by mailing each
defendant a waiver of service. The defendants have 60 days from the date the waiver is
sent to file an answer. If the defendants have not filed answers or appeared through
counsel within 90 days of the entry of this order, the plaintiff may file a motion
requesting the status of service. After the defendants have been served, the court will
enter an order setting discovery and dispositive motion deadlines.
4.
With respect to a defendant who no longer works at the address provided
by the plaintiff, the entity for whom that defendant worked while at that address shall
provide to the clerk said defendant's current work address, or, if not known, said
defendant's forwarding address. This information shall be used only for effectuating
service. Documentation of forwarding addresses shall be retained only by the clerk and
shall not be maintained in the public docket nor disclosed by the clerk.
5.
The defendants shall file an answer within 60 days of the date the waiver
is sent by the clerk. A motion to dismiss is not an answer. The answer should include
all defenses appropriate under the Federal Rules. The answer and subsequent
pleadings shall be to the issues and claims stated in this opinion. In general, an answer
sets forth the defendants' positions. The court does not rule on the merits of those
positions unless and until a motion is filed by the defendants. Therefore, no response to
the answer is necessary or will be considered.
6.
This district uses electronic filing, which means that, after defense counsel
has filed an appearance, defense counsel will automatically receive electronic notice of
any motion or other paper filed by the plaintiff with the clerk. The plaintiff does not
need to mail to defense counsel copies of motions and other papers that the plaintiff has
filed with the clerk. However, this does not apply to discovery requests and responses.
Discovery requests and responses are not filed with the clerk. The plaintiff must mail
his discovery requests and responses directly to defendants' counsel. Discovery
requests or responses sent to the clerk will be returned unfiled, unless they are attached
to and the subject of a motion to compel. Discovery does not begin until defense
counsel has filed an appearance and the court has entered a scheduling order, which
will explain the discovery process in more detail.

7.
Counsel for the defendants is hereby granted leave to depose the plaintiff
at his place of confinement. Counsel for the defendants shall arrange the time for the
deposition.
8.
The plaintiff shall immediately notify the court, in writing, of any change
in his mailing address and telephone number. The plaintiff's failure to notify the court
of a change in mailing address or phone number will result in dismissal of this lawsuit,
with prejudice.
9.
If a defendant fails to sign and return a waiver of service to the clerk
within 30 days after the waiver is sent, the court will take appropriate steps to effect
formal service through the U.S. Marshals service on that defendant and will require that
defendant to pay the full costs of formal service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(d)(2).
10.
The clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified protective order
pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
11.
The clerk is directed to terminate Mike Funk, Employees of I.D.O.C. and
Employees of Knox County Board as defendants.
12.
The clerk is directed to attempt service on the remaining defendants
pursuant to the standard procedures.
13.
Plaintiff Charles’ claims are severed from this case. The clerk is directed
to open a new case entitled, Dallas Charles v. Lou Glossip and Nurse Doe. The clerk is
also directed to file the complaint from this case and this order in the new case, and
enter the standard text order regarding payment of the filing fee or filing a petition to
proceed in forma pauperis.
Entered this 19th day of December, 2016.
/s/ Harold A. Baker
___________________________________________
HAROLD A. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE