Allen et al v. Rednour et al

Filing 78

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before October 14, 2013, any and all plaintiffs who desire to proceed shall file an amended complaint, signed by each named plaintiff. (Amended Pleadings due by 10/14/2013). Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 9/13/2013. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ANTHONY ALLEN, #B43715, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DAVID A. REDNOUR, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 13-cv-00851-GPM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MURPHY, District Judge:
Plaintiff Anthony Allen and 56 other named plaintiffs, all of whom are inmates in the
custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections, have brought this action for deprivations of
their constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on incidents that occurred at
Menard Correctional Center. There are 51 named defendants and three additional categories of
unidentified defendants. Incidents occurring from May 2011 to the present are described in the
complaint, most of which can be categorized as pertaining to “conditions of confinement”
claims. Allegations of retaliation, and disparate treatment based on race are also made.
This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:
(a) Screening.– The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as
soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for Dismissal.– On review, the court shall identify cognizable
claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint–
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief.

Page 1 of 6

An action or claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The claim of entitlement to
relief must cross “the line between possibility and plausibility. Id. at 557. Conversely, a
complaint is plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court
to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Although the Court is obligated to accept factual
allegations as true, see Smith v. Peters, 631 F.3d 418, 419 (7th Cir. 2011), some factual
allegations may be so sketchy or implausible that they fail to provide sufficient notice of a
plaintiff’s claim. Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009). Additionally, Courts
“should not accept as adequate abstract recitations of the elements of a cause of action or
conclusory legal statements.” Id. At the same time, however, the factual allegations of a pro se
complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d
816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
Upon careful review of the complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it
appropriate to exercise its authority under Section 1915A; the complaint shall be summarily
dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend.
Discussion
Multiple Plaintiffs
As a preliminary matter, the complaint is problematic because it is signed only by
Plaintiff Anthony Allen, not by all named plaintiffs.

Plaintiff Allen clearly drafted the

complaint, but he does not even know each plaintiff’s name—two plaintiffs are referred to only

Page 2 of 6

by their last names. Whether Allen has taken it upon himself to file an action on behalf of the
other 56 plaintiffs remains to be seen.
Allen is proceeding pro se and he has moved for pauper status based on his own lack of
funds (see Doc. 2). Allen is not an attorney. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) requires each
party or his attorney to sign the complaint and all other pleadings. Although individuals may
represent themselves in federal court, pro se litigants and non-lawyers cannot represent other
individuals or corporations. Nocula v. Tooling Systems International Corp., 520 F.3d 719, 725
(7th Cir.2008) (“corporations cannot appear pro se, and one pro se litigant cannot represent
another”) (citations omitted). Therefore, Allen cannot proceed as though he is representing the
other 56 named plaintiffs.
Not only must each plaintiff sign the complaint, each must also pay the $400 filing fee
($350 for those granted pauper status). See Boriboune v. Berge, 391 F.3d 852, 855-56 (7th Cir.
2004).

Each plaintiff’s individual obligation to pay the filing fee for this action was,

theoretically, incurred at the time the action was filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); Lucien v.
Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998). However, because the complaint was signed only
by Plaintiff Allen, the filing fee will not automatically be assessed against each plaintiff. Rather,
only Allen is deemed liable for the fee at this point in time. The other plaintiffs will be given a
period of time within which to “opt in” to this action and to pay the filing fee.
The Claims
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires only a “short and plain” statement of the
claims, showing entitlement to relief. “Rule 8(a) requires parties to make their pleadings
straightforward, so that judges and adverse parties need not try to fish a gold coin from a bucket
of mud.” United States ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir.

Page 3 of 6

2003) (affirming the dismissal of a complaint with 400 paragraphs covering 155 pages followed
by ninety-nine attachments, replete with undefined acronyms and mysterious cross-references).
Considering the number of plaintiffs and defendants, the 57-page complaint (excluding exhibits)
is relatively brief. Although the Court attempts to liberally construe pro se litigant’s pleadings,
the Court cannot be left to fashion claims and arguments from what is generally one long
narrative of events that can aptly be characterized as a “bucket of mud.”
It is difficult to discern the claims particular to Plaintiff Allen from claims that are
intended to be made by all plaintiffs.

The complaint generally describes a chronological

narrative specific to Allen, but general and specific allegations are so intertwined so that the
Court cannot merely construe the complaint as pertaining only to Allen.
It is equally difficult to discern which defendant allegedly did what to whom. Not only
are all 57 plaintiffs not mentioned in the narrative, not all of the defendants are mentioned. Also,
the use of the pronoun “he” without otherwise identifying the defendant in some way makes it
impossible for the Court to attempt to delineate all of the claims plaintiffs may be aiming to
pursue.
Additionally, many claims are no more than conclusory assertions that do not satisfy the
Twombly standard. Even if the Court were to attempt to frame claims from the narrative, many
would fail based on basic principles of civil rights law. Section 1983 creates a cause of action
based on personal liability and predicated upon fault; thus, “to be liable under [Section] 1983, an
individual defendant must have caused or participated in a constitutional deprivation.” Pepper v.
Village of Oak Park, 430 F.3d 809, 810 (7th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). As a result, the
doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to actions filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See,
e.g., Kinslow v. Pullara, 538 F.3d 687, 692 (7th Cir. 2008). And, claims of retaliation and

Page 4 of 6

conspiracy necessarily require a certain amount of factual underpinning to survive preliminary
review. See Woodruff v. Mason, 542 F.3d 545, 551 (7th Cir. 2008), quoting Massey v. Johnson,
457 F.3d 711, 716 (7th Cir. 2006).
Severance
The many incidents described in the complaint, whether they happened only to Plaintiff
Allen or to all 57 plaintiffs, cannot be brought in a single action. In George v. Smith, 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. 507
F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.2007, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), (g). This concept must be kept in mind
when drafting any amended complaint in order to avoid having claims severed into separate
actions. Each plaintiff would have to pay an additional filing fee for each severed action.
Pending Motions
There are several pending motions from named Plaintiffs, as well as letters received by
the Court. These motions will be addressed by separate order, if necessary.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED without
prejudice for failure to state a claim.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before October 14, 2013, any and all
plaintiffs who desire to proceed shall file an amended complaint, signed by each named plaintiff.
In recognition of the fact that the plaintiffs are not all at the same facility, a plaintiff may file an
affidavit joining in the amended complaint and certifying that all allegations made in the
amended complaint are true and correct to the best of the plaintiff’s knowledge and belief and are

Page 5 of 6

in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11(a) and 11(b). Each plaintiff joining in
the amended complaint must also either pay the $400 filing fee or move to proceed in forma
pauperis.
Any plaintiff who does not join in the amended complaint shall be dismissed from this
action without incurring a filing fee. If no plaintiff elects to proceed with an amended complaint,
the action will be dismissed and the case will be closed, with only Plaintiff Allen incurring an
obligation to pay the filing fee.
Any amended complaint will be subject to preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Finally, all plaintiffs are ADVISED that they are each under a continuing obligation to
keep the Clerk of Court and each opposing party informed of any change in their address; the
Court will not independently investigate a plaintiff’s 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 for want of prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 13, 2013
s/ G. Patrick Murphy
G. PATRICK MURPHY
United States District Judge

Page 6 of 6