Johnson et al v. Superintendent Bryant et al

Filing 6

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable James F. Holderman on 10/26/2011: Plaintiff Tommy Johnson's complaint is dismissed for the reasons given in this order. Plaintiff Jermaine Johnson's (hereinafter, "Plaintiff") motion to pr oceed in forma pauperis [# 5 ] is granted. The Court orders the trust fund officer at Cook County Jail to collect monthly payments from Plaintiff's trust fund account as stated below. The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the Supervisor o f Inmate Trust Fund Accounts, Cook County Dept. of Corrections Administrative Office, Division V, 2700 S. California, Chicago, IL 60608. However, Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff submitting an amended complaint. Plaintiff is also ordered to show cause as to why his complaint should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this order within 3 0 days will result in dismissal of this action. The Clerk is directed to send to Plaintiff an amended complaint form along with a copy of this order. Plaintiff's motion to correct his identification number [# 3 ] is granted. Signed by the Honorable James F. Holderman on 10/26/2011. Mailed notice(vcf, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

James F. Holderman

CASE NUMBER

11 C 5785

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

October 26, 2011

Tommy Johnson (#R-49448) and Jermaine Johnson (#2011-0429240) v. Bryant, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

Plaintiff Tommy Johnson’s complaint is dismissed for the reasons given in this order. Plaintiff Jermaine Johnson’s
(hereinafter, “Plaintiff”) motion to proceed in forma pauperis [#5] is granted. The Court orders the trust fund officer at
Cook County Jail to collect monthly payments from Plaintiff’s trust fund account as stated below. The Clerk shall send
a copy of this order to the Supervisor of Inmate Trust Fund Accounts, Cook County Dept. of Corrections Administrative
Office, Division V, 2700 S. California, Chicago, IL 60608. However, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice
to Plaintiff submitting an amended complaint. Plaintiff is also ordered to show cause as to why his complaint should not
be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997. Plaintiff’s
failure to comply with this order within 30 days will result in dismissal of this action. The Clerk is directed to send to
Plaintiff an amended complaint form along with a copy of this order. Plaintiff’s motion to correct his identification number
[#3] is granted.

O [For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
Plaintiffs Tommy Johnson and Jermaine Johnson have filed this 42 U.S.C. §1983 suit against a number
of Cook County Jail officials and officers. They allege that inmates taking psychotropic medication are placed
in segregation without benefit of a hearing within 48 hours and kept in segregation for longer than 7 working
days. The conditions in segregation alleged include no access to law library and outside activities, and that they
are required to be in their cells for 23 hours per day. Plaintiffs allege that after the tickets are expired, the subject
inmates are then returned to general population. Plaintiffs further allege that this practice violates their due
process rights and that they cannot exhaust their administrative remedies as required under 42 U.S.C. § 1997(a).
Although both Plaintiffs apparently signed the complaint, only Plaintiff Jermaine Johnson has submitted
an i.f.p. application. Additionally, Plaintiff Tommy Johnson, since submitting the complaint, has been transferred
from the Cook County Jail and into state custody. While the docket indicates that he is presently incarcerated,
the IDOC web site indicates that he is incarcerated at Illinois River Correctional Center, and has been in IDOC
custody since August 9, 2011. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a), multiple plaintiffs may file a § 1983 action;
however, Plaintiffs are not now, nor are they likely to remain in the same location while this suit is pending, thus
making it difficult for both of them to prosecute the case. As Plaintiff Tommy Johnson has not submitted a
properly completed and certified i.f.p. application, and it is unclear from the allegations made in the complaint
that they can satisfy the requirements of permissive joinder under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20, only Plaintiff Jermaine
Johnson may proceed in this suit upon submission of an acceptable amended complaint. See Boriboune v. Berge,
391 F.3d 852, 855-856 (7th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff Tommy Johnson’s complaint is dismissed.
(CONTINUED)
AWL

Page 1 of 3

STATEMENT
Plaintiff Jermaine Johnson’s (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”) motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is
granted. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $3.30. The
supervisor of inmate trust accounts at the Cook County Jail is authorized and ordered to collect, when funds exist,
the partial filing fee from Plaintiff’s trust fund account and pay it directly to the Clerk of Court. After payment
of the initial partial filing fee, the trust fund officer at Plaintiff’s place of confinement is directed to collect monthly
payments from his trust fund account in an amount equal to 20% of the preceding month’s income credited to the
account. Monthly payments collected from Plaintiff’s trust fund account shall be forwarded to the Clerk of Court
each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 until the full $350 filing fee is paid. All payments shall be sent
to the Clerk, United States District Court, 219 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, Illinois 60604, attn: Cashier’s Desk, 20th
Floor, and shall clearly identify Plaintiff’s name and the case number assigned to this action. The Cook County
inmate trust account office shall notify transferee authorities of any outstanding balance in the event Plaintiff is
transferred from the jail to another correctional facility. Plaintiff has also submitted a motion correcting his
identification number. That motion is granted.
However, Plaintiff’s complaint, as currently drafted, cannot proceed. The complaint is not on the proper
form and is unclear as to what claims are being alleged against which Defendants. Local Rule 81.1 (N.D. Ill.)
requires that inmates proceeding pro se file their civil rights suits on this Court’s form. The Clerk shall forward
amended complaint forms to Plaintiff. Additionally, a complaint must provide each Defendant sufficient notice
of the claim being alleged against him or her and the grounds upon which the claim is based. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a);
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007). The complaint indicates that Plaintiff was placed
in segregation without a hearing; however, he names a number of Defendants and does not specify how each
Defendant was personally involved. Rather, Plaintiff simply makes general allegations and states that he was
denied his constitutional rights. He provides some detail, but his narrative style and confusing chronology render
the complaint ineffective in terms of placing Defendants on notice of how Plaintiff’s rights were alleged to have
been violated. A complaint must do more than recite the elements of a cause of action, and a court need not accept
mere labels and legal conclusions as factual allegations. Bell Atlantic Corp,, 127 S. Ct. at 1965. Also, a court need
not presume facts not alleged. Id.
Additionally, to the extent Plaintiff is attempting to allege a conditions of confinement claim, the challenged
condition must amount to “punishment.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). The standard for determining
punishment is similar whether considered in the context of the Due Process Clause or the Eighth Amendment.
Zentmeyer v. Kendall County, Ill., 220 F.3d 805, 810 (7th Cir. 2000). Punishment requires something more than
routine discomfort. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981). Punishment in the constitutional sense requires
allegations of extreme deprivations over an extended period of time. See Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1431
(7th Cir. 1996). See also Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1992); Bell at 542; Henderson v. Sheahan, 196
F.3d 839, 845 (7th Cir. 1999). It does not appear from what Plaintiff has pled that the conditions were either
extreme, or for a prolonged period of time. Consequently, to the extent that Plaintiff decides to submit an amended
complaint, he is advised to do legal research to ensure that what he is claiming is not frivolous. If Plaintiff submits
a complaint that is legally frivolous, he risks being assigned a “strike” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
(CONTINUED)

Page 2 of 3

STATEMENT
Finally, Plaintiff affirmatively pleads in his complaint that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies
prior to filing suit. A plaintiff may plead himself out of court by including factual allegations which if true show
that his legal rights were not invaded. Lekas v. Briley, 405 F.3d 602 at 613 (7th Cir. 2005), citing American
Nurses’ Association v. Illinois, 783 F.2d 716 at 725(7th Cir. 1986). The Seventh Circuit has also held, “We are
not required to ignore facts alleged in the complaint that undermine Plaintiff’s claim.” Wroblewski v. City of
Washburn, 965 F.2d 452, 459 (7th Cir. 1992). As Plaintiff has affirmatively pleaded that he failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies prior to filing suit, it appears the he may have undermined his complaint. Consequently,
Plaintiff is ordered to show cause within thirty days of the date of this order as to why his complaint should not
be dismissed for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit.
Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff submitting an amended complaint.
If Plaintiff chooses to submit an amended complaint, he must state the claims he seeks to raise, including enough
information about the claims to give each Defendant notice of the violations being alleged. Plaintiff should not
include Defendants who were not personally involved in the constitutional violations he seeks to allege, and should
submit only non-frivolous claims against suable parties. If Plaintiff chooses to proceed with this case he must
submit a proposed amended complaint, and must show cause as to why his complaint should not be dismissed for
failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit within thirty days of the date of this order. If
Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this case will be dismissed with prejudice.

Page 3 of 3