O'Quinn v. Gaetz et al

Filing 8

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1 ) is DISMISSED without prejudice for non-compliance with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file his amended complaint on or before March 4, 2014. Should Plaintiff fail to file an amended complaint within the allotted time, dismissal will become with prejudice. To enable Plaintiff to comply with this order, the Clerk is DIRECTED to mail Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint form. (Amended Pleadings due by 3/4/2014). Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 1/28/2014. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHESTER O’QUINN, # K-92939,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DONALD GAETZ, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 13-cv-01342-JPG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT, District Judge:
Plaintiff Chester O’Quinn, an inmate who is currently incarcerated at Pinckneyville
Correctional Center (“Pinckneyville”), brings this class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Doc. 1). As explained in greater detail below, Plaintiff’s complaint violates the pleading
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As such, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed
without prejudice and with leave to amend.
The Complaint
On December 27, 2013, Plaintiff filed this action on behalf of himself and an unspecified
number of additional inmates against twenty-two defendants. The complaint describes this
matter as a “potentially (sic) class action suit.” According to the complaint, “some issues relate
only to [Plaintiff], but most issues relate to the class” (Doc. 1, p. 5).
What follows is an 11-page handwritten list of constitutional violations (Doc. 1, pp. 616). The list is prefaced with the following statement: “During the past 6 months and currently
these are the issues that I and we feel violate our constitutional rights” (Doc. 1, p. 6). It is often
difficult to discern whether the allegations in the complaint pertain to Plaintiff, to the class, or to

1

both. Even more problematic is the fact that very few defendants are mentioned by name in the
statement of claim. It is therefore difficult to discern who allegedly did what.
Further, the list of alleged constitutional deprivations is long and vague. Many, though
not all, pertain to Eighth Amendment claims of deliberate indifference to inmate medical needs
or unconstitutional conditions of confinement. These alleged violations include, but certainly are
not limited to, the: (1) denial of adequate medical care for diabetic inmates; (2) denial of
vaccines to inmates; (3) failure to treat Plaintiff’s cysts and boils with antibiotics for six months;
(4) failure to provide diabetics with an adequate diet; (5) denial of pillows; (6) failure to treat
nerve damage in Plaintiff’s hand; (7) challenge to the prison’s sick call and medical copay
policy; (8) challenge to the handcuff policy for diabetics; (9) delay in prescription refills;
(10) delay in filling Plaintiff’s prescription medications for thirty-eight days; (11) denial of
Plaintiff’s gym pass for over sixty days; (12) denial of treatment for Plaintiff’s spider bite for
over six months; (13) denial of adequate hygiene supplies; (14) denial of Plaintiff’s mental health
treatment; and (15) failure to fill a hole at the prison with concrete. This list is not exhaustive.
The complaint sets forth many claims with few details.
Legal Standard
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dictates that a complaint must provide
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” and also
“a demand for the relief sought.” FED. R. APP. P. 8(a). Additionally, Rule 8(d) requires that each
allegation within the complaint “must be simple, concise, and direct.” FED. R. APP. P. 8(d)(1).
The allegations in the complaint must “actually suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief, by
providing

allegations

that

raise

a

right

to

relief

above

a

speculative

level.”

Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1084 (7th Cir. 2008) (emphasis in original). At the same

2

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).
Discussion
Even affording Plaintiff’s complaint the liberal construction that a pro se pleading
deserves, it is in clear violation of the pleading requirements. The Court cannot shoulder the full
burden of fashioning a viable complaint for a pro se plaintiff.
First, Plaintiff cannot bring a class action on behalf of his fellow inmates. See Oxendine
v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (holding it would be plain error to permit
imprisoned pro se litigant to represent his fellow inmates in a class action). The Federal Rules
permit class actions to be maintained only if the class representative (in this case the pro se Mr.
O’Quinn) “will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class,” FED. R. APP. P. 23(a)(4),
and “[e]very court that has considered the issue has held that a prisoner proceeding pro se is
inadequate to represent the interests of his fellow inmates in a class action.” Lee v. Gardinez,
No. 11-cv-570-GPM, 2012 WL 143612, at *1 n.1 (S.D. Ill., Jan. 18, 2012) (quoting
Craig v. Cohn, 80 F. Supp. 2d 944, 946 (N.D. Ind. 2000) (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted)). Therefore, it is appropriate to dismiss the complaint on this basis alone.
Second, although Plaintiff asserts certain claims on behalf of himself, it is difficult, if not
impossible, to discern which claims pertain to him and which claims relate to other inmates. To
comply with the general pleading requirements, Plaintiff must assert only those claims that
pertain to him, describe with specificity the events giving rise to each claim, and identify each
defendant who participated in the deprivation. See Higgason v. Farley, 83 F.3d 807, 810
(7th Cir. 1996) (plaintiff lacks standing in § 1983 action where he alleges that inmates generally

3

are treated in contravention to the constitution, but not that plaintiff himself was treated in
violation of the constitution).
Third, it appears that Plaintiff is attempting to improperly bring unrelated claims in a
single case. As instructed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, “[u]nrelated claims against
different defendants belong in different suits,” in part to prevent prisoners from dodging filing
fees or the three strikes provision in the Prison Litigation Reform Act. George v. Smith,
507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Specifically, Rule 18(a) provides that “[a] party asserting a
claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternate
claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party.” FED. R. APP. P. 18(a). Under Rule
20(a)(2), defendants may be joined in one action only if the Plaintiff asserts a “right to relief . . .
against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” and “any question of law or fact
common to all defendants will arise in the action.” FED. R. APP. P. 20(a)(2). Thus, under these
rules, “multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should
not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” George, 507 F.3d at 607.
Because Plaintiff’s complaint is too muddled for either the Court or defendants to
manage, it shall be dismissed without prejudice. Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1110
(7th Cir. 2003) (“If a complaint's length and lack of clarity make it unintelligible, dismissal under
FED. R. APP. P. 8(a) is permitted . . . .”); Flayter v. Wisconsin Dep't of Corr., 16 F. App’x 507,
509 (7th Cir. 2001) (“A prolix and confusing complaint should be dismissed because it makes it
difficult for the defendant to file a responsive pleading and for the court to conduct orderly
litigation;”), citing Vicom, Inc. v. Harbridge Merch. Serv., Inc., 20 F.3d 771, 775-76 (7th Cir.
1994).

4

However, Plaintiff shall be granted leave to file an amended complaint. When filing his
amended complaint, Plaintiff should refrain from filing unnecessary exhibits, such as the tube of
toothpaste and deodorant he filed with the original complaint.

Plaintiff should also bring

separate, unrelated claims in separate actions. This may include filing actions in another judicial
district. As the events giving rise to this action occurred during the six months immediately
preceding this action, it does not appear that Plaintiff faces an impending statute of limitations
deadline. Therefore, he should not be prejudiced by the dismissal of these claims, but he should
be mindful of the applicable deadlines when considering whether to file a new lawsuit in the
proper district.
Pending Motions
Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend/correct (Doc. 4), which consists of additional
exhibits he would like to file with the original complaint and a request to add co-plaintiffs to this
action. The motion is DENIED for the reasons set forth in this order. However, Plaintiff shall
have an opportunity to file a complete amended complaint, consistent with the below-listed
instructions.
Plaintiff has also filed a motion to instruct (Doc. 6), in which he claims that he is being
denied access to the law library. This motion is also DENIED. Should Plaintiff wish to assert
this claim, he must do so in an amended complaint, according to the below-listed instructions.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED
without prejudice for non-compliance with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file his amended complaint on or before March 4, 2014.
Should Plaintiff fail to file an amended complaint within the allotted time, dismissal will become

5

with prejudice. FED. R. APP. P. 41(b). See generally Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th
Cir. 1997); Johnson v. Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994).
Should Plaintiff decide to file an amended complaint, it is strongly recommended that he
use the forms designed for use in this District for such actions. The amended complaint shall
present each claim in a separate count, and each count shall specify, by name, each Defendant
alleged to be liable under the count, as well as the actions alleged to have been taken by that
Defendant. Plaintiff should attempt to include the facts of his case in chronological order,
inserting Defendants’ names where necessary to identify the actors. Plaintiff should refrain from
filing unnecessary exhibits. Plaintiff should include only related claims in his new complaint.
Claims found to be unrelated will be severed into new cases, new case numbers will be assigned,
and additional filing fees will be assessed. To enable Plaintiff to comply with this order, the
Clerk is DIRECTED to mail Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint form.
Plaintiff is ADVISED that this dismissal shall not count as one of his allotted “strikes”
under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Plaintiff is further ADVISED that his obligation to pay the filing fee for this action was
incurred at the time the action was filed, thus the filing fee of $350.001 remains due and payable,
regardless of whether Plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1);
Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998).
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
1

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) will be addressed in a separate Order
of this Court. Should the motion be denied, the filing fee will be $400.00 instead of $350.00.

6

cause a delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in dismissal of this action
for want of prosecution. See FED. R. APP. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 28, 2014
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
U.S. District Judge

7