Brown v. Scott et al

Filing 7

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 11/17/2017. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1) Plaintiff's first motion for leave to amend is denied as moot 5 and his second motion for leave to amend is granted pursuant to Feder al Rule of Civil Procedure 15. 6 2) Pursuant to its review of Plaintiff's amended complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to articulate a federal claim and his complaint is therefore dismissed. 3) The Court will allow Plaintiff one op portunity to file an amended complaint clarifying his claims. Plaintiff MUST follow the directions of the Court and must file his proposed amended complaint within 21 days or on or beforeDecember 1, 2017. If Plaintiff fails to follow the Court 9;s directions or fails to file his proposed second amended complaint on or before the December 1, 2017 deadline, his case will be dismissed with prejudice. 4) The Clerk of the Court is to reset the complaint review deadline for 21 days from this order. See full written Order.(VH, ilcd)

E-FILED

Friday, 17 November, 2017 11:11:24 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BOBBY BROWN,
Plaintiff,

vs.
GREG SCOTT, et al.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 17-4211

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
The Plaintiff in this case filed his original complaint [1] followed by two motions
for leave to amend his complaint. [5, 6]. The most recent motion to amend supersedes
Plaintiff’s other complaints. Therefore, the first motion to amend is denied as moot [5],
but the second motion is granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. [6]
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and is detained in the Rushville Treatment and
Detention Center. 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 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.

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 (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)(quoted cite omitted).
Plaintiff claims his constitutional rights were violated at the Rushville Treatment
and Detention Center by Facility Director Greg Scott, Security Director Chris Clayton,
Legal Coordinator Lynn Shelton, Clinical Director Shan Jumper, Assistant Clinical
Director Sharlene Carraway, Former Security Director Eugene McAdory, Former
Security Director Terry Williams, Major Joseph Hankins, Sergeant Curtis Parson and
Facility Evaluator Joseph Proctor.
Plaintiff’s complaint is very repetitive and appears to restate the same claims
against each of the named Defendants. Plaintiff says on August 4, 2015, he received a
settlement offer in Brown v McAdory, Case No. 11-3195, which allowed him to have a
guitar in his room as long as he maintained a C grade status. (Comp, Ex. 4). However,
Plaintiff says the Defendants all conspired to retaliate against him for his refusal to
accept the settlement officer. Plaintiff says also on August 4, 2015, he was found guilty
of a false disciplinary report and sent to segregation. As a result, apparently Plaintiff’s
“status” was lowered and he was not eligible to have a musical instrument. (Amd.
Comp., p. 4).
The Court notes the attachments to Plaintiff’s complaint indicate he received an
incident report on August 2, 2015, but Plaintiff was not found guilty of the fighting

allegation until August 4, 2015 (Amd. Comp., Ex. 1, 2). In addition, an email was sent to
Plaintiff regarding a potential settlement on August 4, 2015 that indicates it is a “followup to our phone conversation.” (Amd. Comp, Ex. 4). The Court notes Brown v.
McAdory, Case No. 11-3195 proceeded to a jury trial on November 19, 2015.
To demonstrate a First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show “(1)
he engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment; (2) he suffered a deprivation
that would likely deter First Amendment activity in the future; and (3) the First
Amendment activity was at least a motivating factor in the [d]efendants' decision to
take the retaliatory action.” Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 546 (7th Cir.2009) (internal
quotations omitted); Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 783 (7th Cir. 2015). However,
Plaintiff claims Defendants retaliated against him or conspired to retaliate against him
because he would not accept a settlement offer. Engaging in settlement talks is not a
protected activity. In addition, based on the documents provided to the Court, the
settlement offer was made at the time Plaintiff was disciplined, not after he rejected the
offer. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to state a constitutional violation based on
retaliation or conspiracy to retaliate.
Nonetheless, it is unclear whether this is the allegation Plaintiff intended to
allege or whether Plaintiff was also alleging additional claims. Since Plaintiff is
proceeding pro se, the Court will allow him one opportunity to clarify his allegations.
However, Plaintiff MUST follow the Court’s directions or his revised complaint will be
dismissed and his case will be dismissed with prejudice.

The amended complaint must stand complete on its own, include all claims
against all Defendants, and must not make reference to any previous filing. The body
of Plaintiff’s amended complaint must include numbered paragraphs. For each
paragraph, Plaintiff must state only one claim including what happened, when it
happened, where it happened, and who was involved. Plaintiff must not repeat his
claims, but instead state each intended claim only one time to avoid confusion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1) Plaintiff’s first motion for leave to amend is denied as moot [5] and his second
motion for leave to amend is granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15. [6]
2) Pursuant to its review of Plaintiff’s amended complaint, the Court finds
Plaintiff has failed to articulate a federal claim and his complaint is therefore
dismissed.
3) The Court will allow Plaintiff one opportunity to file an amended complaint
clarifying his claims. Plaintiff MUST follow the directions of the Court and must
file his proposed amended complaint within 21 days or on or before
December 1, 2017. If Plaintiff fails to follow the Court’s directions or fails to file
his proposed second amended complaint on or before the December 1, 2017
deadline, his case will be dismissed with prejudice.
4) The Clerk of the Court is to reset the complaint review deadline for 21 days
from this order.
ENTERED this 17th day of November, 2017.

s/ James E. Shadid
____________________________________________
JAMES E. SHADID
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE