Fields v. Maue et al

Filing 37

ORDER GRANTING 36 MOTION to Amend/Correct 31 Scheduling Order filed by Withoff, Major Durham, GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 30 MOTION for Leave to File filed by Michael Fields. Discovery due by 10/31/2013, Dispositive Motions due by 11/29/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 10/10/13. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MICHAEL FIELDS,
Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. WITHOFF and MAJOR DURHAM,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:12-cv-1170-GPM-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court are the Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint filed
by Plaintiff, Michael Fields on May 14, 2013 (Doc. 30) and the Motion to Amend/Correct
Scheduling Order filed by Defendants, Major Durham and Sgt. Whithoff, on September 27, 2013
(Doc. 36). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and the Motion to Amend Scheduling Order is
GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s original Complaint (Doc. 1) named 14 Defendants and alleged various claims
from retaliation to cruel and unusual punishment that occurred from January to May, 2012.
Plaintiff alleged that various Defendants harassed him, wrote false disciplinary tickets, denied him
food, failed to respond to grievances, and failed to provide medical care or appropriate housing in
light of his medical conditions. In a Screening Order issued on February 11, 2013 (Doc. 13), the
Court allowed Plaintiff to proceed on three claims:
Count 1: Retaliation claim against Defendants Withoff and Durham for moving
Plaintiff to a cell lacking sufficient ventilation after Plaintiff complained to
Defendant Godinez;
Count 2: Eighth Amendment unconstitutional conditions claim against Defendant

Restoff for depriving Plaintiff of sufficient food for a period of at least six days;
Count 3: First Amendment claim against Defendant Roy for denying Plaintiff
access to his books, which may have included religious materials.
The Court then severed Counts 2 and 3 so that only Count 1, a retaliation claim against Defendants
Withoff and Durham, would proceed in this lawsuit. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that after he
wrote a letter to Salvadore Godinez (the Director of the IDOC) complaining about conditions in
Menard Correctional Center on May 4, 2012, he was moved by Defendant Withoff, on Defendant
Durham’s orders, to a cell that lacked ventilation on May 16, 2012 (Doc. 1, pp. 13).
Plaintiff sought reconsideration of Judge Murphy’s Screening Order on February 22, 2013
(Doc. 17) which was denied on March 14, 2013 (Doc. 19). Plaintiff now seeks to amend his
complaint to include claims against Shellie Cartwright (whom he claims increased his
classification level to high security prisoner/risk), to assert individual capacity claims against
Defendants Withoff and Durham, to assert a “campaign of harassment” or conspiracy claim
against various Defendants who have been dismissed. Plaintiff does not re-allege any claim in his
Amended Complaint but merely lists a number of paragraphs (1, 14, 15, 56, 58, 60, 77, 78, and the
prayer for relief) that he would like to supplement with additional allegations or facts.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that Plaintiff requires leave of court to file
an amended pleading and that leave should be freely given when justice so requires. Leave to
amend may be denied if there is “undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure
deficiencies, undue prejudice to the defendants, or where the amendment would be futile.”
Arreola v. Godinez, 546 F.3d 788, 796 (7th Cir. 2008). Local Rule 15.1 further provides that
Plaintiffs shall provide the proposed pleading to the Court with “[a]ll new material” underlined.
Plaintiff has not provided a complete amended pleading: he has merely provided various
2

paragraphs that would replace/supplement the same paragraphs in the original Complaint.
With respect to Shelly Cartwright, Plaintiff makes no allegation in his Amended Complaint
other than to indicate that she changed his classification and she worked in the same housing unit
as other Defendants. There is no “short and plain” statement of the claims against her that would
comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Such an amendment, then, is futile. With
respect to Defendants Withoff and Durham, Plaintiff already is suing them in their individual
capacities. An amendment adding such claims, then, is moot.
Plaintiff also seeks to add a conspiracy claim and a “campaign of harassment” claim
against the two remaining Defendants and various Defendants who have been dismissed. As
noted in Judge Murphy’s Order, Plaintiff did not assert a conspiracy or other related claim in his
original Complaint (Doc. 19, p. 2). Judge Murphy has already severed the claims against
Defendants Restoff and Roy and indicated that even if Plaintiff had asserted a claim of conspiracy
against these Defendants in the original complaint severance was proper.

In light of this

conclusion, this Court will not permit an amended complaint that would do an end-run around
Judge Murphy’s previous Order. In any event, these claims are wholly devoid of any facts that
would place such a claim above the speculative level. To state a cognizable claim, the complaint
must provide enough detail to give defendants fair notice of the nature of the claim and the grounds
upon which it rests and to show that relief is plausible. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 554-56 (2007). Conclusory statements or the mere recitation of the elements of the cause of
action are insufficient. Id. The pleading must contain factual allegations that “raise the right to
relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555. Neither Plaintiff’s Complaint nor the Amended
Complaint he proposes would make a conspiracy claim more than speculative.

3

Finally, Plaintiff seeks to amend his claim against the remaining two Defendants to include
an assertion that the new cell that he was placed in (in retaliation) also created “social and sensory
isolation.” This additional ground will be allowed. For clarity, the following paragraphs will
replace/amend the original Complaint:
60. Adopting 31 through 38 claim of cruel and unusual punishment it should be
noted that May 16, 2012 marked the first week of the seasonal heat and plaintiff is a
documented asthmatic. In addition, plaintiff states that he was placed in cell # 801
for social and sensory isolation purposes.
77. The actions of Sgt. Terry Withoff and Major Joseph Durham in transferring
plaintiff to North II’s cell # 801, where plaintiff endured poor ventilation as an
asthmatic and psychological torture from social and sensory isolation.
B. Award punitive damages in the following amount:
1. $20,000 each against defendants Sgt. Terry Withoff and Major Joseph
Durham.
Defendants SHALL file an amended Answer addressing these new assertions by October 24,
2013. In addition, the Discovery deadline in this matter is extended to October 31, 2013 for the
sole purpose of conducting Plaintiff’s deposition.

The dispositive motion filing deadline is

accordingly extended to November 29, 2013.
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Doc. 30) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and the Motion to Amend/Correct Scheduling
Order (Doc. 36) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 10, 2013

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge
4