Chencinski v. Reeder et al

Filing 8

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claim against DEFENDANT TILDEN for deliberate indifference to medical needs (COUNT 3) is SEVERED into a new case. The new case SHALL B E ASSIGNED to the undersigned District Judge for further proceedings. In the new case, the Clerk is DIRECTED to file the following documents: (1) This Memorandum and Order (2) The Original Complaint (Doc. 1) (3) Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) Plaintiff is ADVISED that if, for any reason, he does not wish to proceed with the newly opened case, he must notify the Court in writing on or before September 21, 2012. As to COUNTS 1 and 2, which remain in the instant case, the C lerk of Court shall prepare for Defendants REEDER, BERKLEY, QUIGLEY and MARVIN (1) Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service of Summons). (Action due by 9/21/2012). Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 8/23/2012. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROBERT CHENCINSKI, # B-75443,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL REEDER,
LT. BERKLEY,
TIMOTHY R. QUIGLEY,
MARCUS T. MARVIN, and
ANDREW HENRY TILDEN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12-cv-0817-MJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Robert Chencinski, currently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center
(“Pontiac”), has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s
initial claims arose while he was incarcerated in the Shawnee Correctional Center. Plaintiff was
transferred to Pontiac on June 9, 2011 (Doc. 1, p. 10), and his medical claim arose after that
transfer.

Plaintiff asserts that he was subjected to retaliation, was found guilty of false

disciplinary charges, and was denied medical care for a serious illness (blepharospasm).1
More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Lt. Berkley and C/O Reeder
retaliated against him because he had filed grievances against Shawnee staff, and pursued a
lawsuit in this Court (Chencinski v. Walker, No. 09-cv-658-SCW, filed Aug. 25, 2009). This
retaliation consisted of Defendant Berkley causing Plaintiff to lose two prison jobs, and failing to
investigate Plaintiff’s grievance (Doc. 1, pp. 6-7). Further, Defendant Reeder issued Plaintiff a
1

Blepharospasm is an abnormal, involuntary blinking or spasm of the eyelids, which may cause facial
spasms. Facts About Blepharospasm, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, August 2009,
http://www.nei.nih.gov/health/blepha/blepharospasm.asp (last visited August 21, 2012).

Page 1 of 6

false disciplinary ticket. He then instructed Defendant Quigley, chairman of the Adjustment
Committee, to “max” Plaintiff in the disciplinary hearing over that false charge, after which
Plaintiff was punished with one year in segregation, a transfer to Pontiac, loss of one year of
good conduct credits,2 and other sanctions (Doc. 1, p. 9). Previously, Defendant Reeder had
retaliated against Plaintiff by falsely claiming Plaintiff had received a gang letter and threatened
to beat up another inmate (Doc. 1, p. 9-10). Defendants Quigley and Marvin conducted the
disciplinary hearing, in which Plaintiff was not allowed an opportunity to present a defense or
call witnesses (Doc. 1, pp. 7-8).
Finally, Defendant Dr. Tilden (the medical director at Pontiac) stopped Plaintiff
from receiving his previously-authorized botox injections, which is the only effective treatment
for his eye and facial spasms (Doc. 1, pp. 9-13).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to conduct a prompt threshold
review of the complaint. Accepting Plaintiff’s allegations as true, the Court finds that Plaintiff
has articulated a colorable federal cause of action against Defendants Berkley, Reeder, and
Quigley for retaliation (Count 1); against Defendants Quigley and Marvin for deprivation of a
liberty interest without due process (Count 2); and against Defendant Tilden for deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need (Count 3).
In George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007), the Seventh Circuit emphasized
that unrelated claims against different defendants belong in separate lawsuits, “not only to
prevent the sort of morass” produced by multi-claim, multi-defendant suits “but also to ensure
that prisoners pay the required filing fees” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. George, 507
F.3d at 607 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), (g)). Plaintiff’s complaint contains two unrelated claims
2

As a general matter, Plaintiff may not seek damages in this § 1983 action for the loss of good conduct
credits. Indeed, he notes (in Doc. 1, p. 13) that he has already begun a challenge to that sanction in a
mandamus action in state court, which is a proper avenue to seek relief.

Page 2 of 6

against different Defendants: Retaliation and due process claims against Defendants Berkley,
Reeder, Quigley, and Marvin, and deliberate indifference to medical needs against Defendant
Tilden. Consistent with the George decision and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, the Court
shall SEVER Count 3 of Plaintiff’s complaint into a new case, according to the instructions
below.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against
DEFENDANT TILDEN for deliberate indifference to medical needs (COUNT 3) is
SEVERED into a new case. The new case SHALL BE ASSIGNED to the undersigned District
Judge for further proceedings. In the new case, the Clerk is DIRECTED to file the following
documents:
(1) This Memorandum and Order
(2) The Original Complaint (Doc. 1)
(3) Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2)
Plaintiff is ADVISED that if, for any reason, he does not wish to proceed with the
newly opened case, he must notify the Court in writing on or before September 21, 2012. Unless
Plaintiff notifies the Court that he does not wish to pursue the newly opened action, he will be
responsible for an additional filing fee in the new case. Furthermore, because the claim against
Defendant Tilden, who is employed at Pontiac, arose in the Central District of Illinois, if Plaintiff
elects to proceed, the new case shall be transferred to the District Court for the Central District of
Illinois. Service shall not be ordered on Defendant Tilden at this time.
Plaintiff is further ADVISED that unless Plaintiff notifies the Court that he does
not wish to proceed with one of these actions, he will be responsible for a separate filing fee in
each case.

Page 3 of 6

As to COUNTS 1 and 2, which remain in the instant case, the Clerk of Court
shall prepare for Defendants REEDER, BERKLEY, QUIGLEY and MARVIN (1) Form 5
(Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of
Service of Summons). The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail these forms, a copy of the complaint,
and this Memorandum and Order to each Defendant’s place of employment as identified by
Plaintiff. If a Defendant fails to sign and return the Waiver of Service of Summons (Form 6) to
the Clerk within 30 days from the date the forms were sent, the Clerk shall take appropriate steps
to effect formal service on that Defendant, and the Court will require that Defendant to pay the
full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
With respect to a Defendant who no longer can be found at the work address
provided by Plaintiff, the employer shall furnish the Clerk with the Defendant’s current work
address, or, if not known, the Defendant’s last-known address. This information shall be used
only for sending the forms as directed above or for formally effecting service.

Any

documentation of the address shall be retained only by the Clerk. Address information shall not
be maintained in the court file or disclosed by the Clerk.
Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendants (or upon defense counsel once an
appearance is entered), a copy of every pleading or other document submitted for consideration
by the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be filed a certificate stating the
date on which a true and correct copy of the document was served on Defendants or counsel.
Any paper received by a district judge or magistrate judge that has not been filed with the Clerk
or that fails to include a certificate of service will be disregarded by the Court.

Page 4 of 6

Defendants are ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the
complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g).
Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a)(2), this action is REFERRED to United States
Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams for further pre-trial proceedings.
Further, this entire matter shall be REFERRED to United States Magistrate
Judge Williams for disposition, pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), if all
parties consent to such a referral.
If judgment is rendered against Plaintiff, and the judgment includes the payment
of costs under § 1915, Plaintiff will be required to pay the full amount of the costs,
notwithstanding that his application to proceed in forma pauperis has been granted. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)(A).
Plaintiff is ADVISED that at the time application was made under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915 for leave to commence this civil action without being required to prepay fees and costs or
give security for the same, the applicant and his or her attorney were deemed to have entered into
a stipulation that the recovery, if any, secured in the action shall be paid to the Clerk of the
Court, who shall pay therefrom all unpaid costs taxed against plaintiff and remit the balance to
plaintiff. Local Rule 3.1(c)(1)
Finally, Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the
Clerk of Court and each opposing party informed of any change in his address; the Court will not
independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later than 7
days after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this order will
cause a delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in dismissal of this action

Page 5 of 6

for want of prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
DATED: August 23, 2012
s/ Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 6 of 6