Bentz v. Godinez et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 9/5/2012. (et, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

DAVID ROBERT BENTZ (S-03210),
Plaintiff,

Case No. 12 C 1753

v.

Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber

SALVADOR GODINEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff David Bentz, an inmate currently incarcerated at the
Menard Correctional Center, has filed an Amended Complaint as
instructed by this Court in its May 7, 2012, order.

Although

Plaintiff has reduced the number of Defendants from 45 to 28, as
well as the number of allegations from 122 to 108, his Amended
Complaint does not sufficiently cure the problems that existed with
his original Complaint and cannot proceed for several reasons.
Not only does the Amended Complaint assert unrelated claims
against different defendants, it is not clear how each defendant
was involved.

Under FED. R. CIV . P. 8(a), a plaintiff must provide

“a

plain

short

and

statement”

of

his

claim.

Additionally,

“[u]nrelated claims against different defendants” must be brought
in different suits.

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.

2007) (although a plaintiff may bring unrelated claims against the

same defendant, he may not join unrelated claims against different
ones).
Like his original Complaint, his Amended Complaint asserts
essentially three sets of claims: (1) his requests to be separated
from

his

unsanitary

cellmate

were

ignored

by

officers;

(2)

Plaintiff was unfairly disciplined for fighting with his cellmate,
who

started

the

fight;

and

(3)

Plaintiff

had

to

endure

unconstitutional conditions in segregation, where he was confined
for four (4) months after being disciplined.
Plaintiff alleges the following in his Amended Complaint.
Beginning on or around March 5, 2010, he began requesting to be
moved out of his cell because his cellmate was unsanitary to the
point that there was a risk of a fight occurring between them.
According to Plaintiff, his cellmate never bathed or changed his
clothes; did not always use the toilet to defecate; excessively
masturbated into his sheets, but never cleaned or changed them; and
spat at and threw urine at Plaintiff.

Plaintiff states that he

submitted request slips to be moved to four or five officers.

Most

of his allegations about his requests to be moved involve Officer
Zernike (“Zernike”), who allegedly told Plaintiff that his cellmate
had not gotten along with any of his prior cellmates, but that
neither

would

be

moved

unless

there

was

a

physical

fight.

Plaintiff’s cellmate also asked to be moved and apparently also
heard that such would not occur unless they fought.

- 2 -

On March 9,

2010, the cellmate allegedly started a fight by whipping Plaintiff
with a cable cord.

Although Plaintiff had a broken hand, he was

able to grab the cable cord away from the cellmate with the other
hand.
The cellmate then reported that Plaintiff had started a fight
and the cellmate submitted a complaint to Internal Affairs.
Plaintiff was accused of attacking the cellmate and hitting him in
the eye.

Even though such was allegedly not possible due to

Plaintiff’s broken hand, he was found guilty on March 12, 2010.
Plaintiff states that he unsuccessfully attempted to submit written
statements to the Adjustment Committee, and he suspects that
Adjustment Committee Members Johnnie Franklin and Laundria Dennis
(both African-American) discriminated against him because he is
Caucasian.

Plaintiff was subsequently moved from an investigatory

segregation cell to another segregation cell.
Plaintiff’s segregation cell, where he was housed for several
months, allegedly had a broken window, a ceiling that leaked,
roaches,

rust,

peeling

paint,

burned

out

electrical

sockets,

exposed light fixtures, and inadequate cold water from the sink.
Plaintiff states that officers came to inspect his cell on May 11,
2010, but told Plaintiff that there was nothing wrong with the
cell, though a work order was later issued to fix the window.

As

of June 15, 2010, the window was still not fixed and Plaintiff
personally told Warden Marcus Hardy and Assistant Warden Randy

- 3 -

Pfister.

In May and June 2010, Plaintiff was shocked when turning

on a light.

On June 5, 2010, Plaintiff did not receive a food tray

for one his meals.

In

September

assaulted by his former cellmate.

2010, Plaintiff was twice
One time the cellmate came to

Plaintiff’s cell and spat on him; another time the cellmate threw
urine at him.
Also in September, Plaintiff was the victim of a fight or riot
in the prison yard when different gang members were allowed to be
in the yard at the same time.

Although Plaintiff submitted

grievances about the yard incident and about his former cellmate
spitting on him and throwing urine at him, the grievances were
never processed.
II.

DISCUSSION

As previously noted, not all the above-described claims are
related, and they involve different defendants.

Plaintiff may not

join unrelated claims against different defendants.
F.3d at 607.

George, 507

His claims that officers refused his requests to

separate him and his cellmate, as well as the claims that he was
unable to present evidence at his disciplinary hearing may be
related; but these claims are unrelated to the conditions of his
segregation confinement. Additionally, while Plaintiff may include
as many defendants who acted with deliberate indifference to
Plaintiff’s situation (i.e., officers who were actually aware of a
serious risk of harm or unconstitutional condition but disregarded
- 4 -

it), not every person who knows of an unconstitutional situation is
liable.

Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 595 (7th Cir. 2009).

Rather, only those persons who were in a position to remedy the
situation in some way may be held responsible.

Burks, 555 F.3d at

595-96.
Accordingly,
prejudice.

the

Amended

Complaint

is

dismissed

without

If Plaintiff seeks to bring all his claims, he should

submit another Amended Complaint in this case with related claims
and

a

separate

Complaint,

with

application, for his other claims.

another

in

forma

pauperis

Plaintiff should name as

defendants only those persons who were personally involved with the
claims raised in each suit.

Plaintiff is given thirty (30) days

from the date of this order to submit such an amended complaint.
The Court additionally notes, as recently stated by the Seventh
Circuit, that “[t]he more claims and defendants in a complaint, the
longer screening will take”

Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources,

Inc., --- F.3d ---, 2012 WL 2999967 at *2 (7th Cir. July 23, 2012).
Plaintiff is advised that an Amended Complaint replaces a
previously filed Complaint and must stand complete on its own. The
Court will refer only to the Amended Complaint, and not to prior
Complaints, to determine the claims and defendants in this case.
Plaintiff must write both the case number and the judge’s name on
the Amended Complaint and submit an original, a judge’s copy, and
a service copy for each defendant. All copies must be submitted to
- 5 -

the Prisoner Correspondence.

Plaintiff is advised to keep a copy

for his files, and he may request additional complaint forms if
needed.

Plaintiff is further advised that the limitations period

for § 1983 claims in Illinois is two (2) years, not including the
time that grievances concerning the claims were pending.
v. Rivera, 272 F.3d 519, 521-22 (7th Cir. 2001).

Johnson

While an amended

complaint in this case may relate back to the date the original
complaint was filed, a new complaint beginning a new suit may not.
III.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
[21] is dismissed without prejudice to him submitting another
amended complaint in accordance with this order within thirty (30)
days of the date of this Order.

The Clerk shall send Plaintiff an

Amended Civil Rights Complaint form, along with a copy of this
Order.

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this Order will result

in summary dismissal of this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge
United States District Court
DATE:9/5/2012

- 6 -