Jones v. Morris et al

Filing 9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that JOHN DOES are DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that COUNT 1, the First Amendment retaliation claim, shall PROCEED against Defendants DAVID G. MORRIS, ALEX JONES and LT. BEST. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 11/24/2014. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DEANGELO M. JONES,
No. B23005,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DAVID G. MORRIS,
SGT. SCHOTT,
LT. BEST,
C/O GOTZ,
ALEX JONES,
ROBERT E. HUGHES,
JASON HART,
SHERRY BENTON, and
JOHN DOES,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 14-cv-01157-JPG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT, District Judge:
Plaintiff DeAngelo M. Jones, an inmate in Stateville Correctional Center, brings this
action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on events
occurring while he was housed at Menard Correctional Center, which is within this judicial
district.
By separate order dated November 21, 2014 (Doc. 6), the complaint underwent a
preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court concluded that
only one viable claim had been stated and ordered that Count 1, a First Amendment retaliation
claim, to proceed against Defendants David G. Morris and Alex Jones. The Court failed to
include Lt. Best as a defendant to Count 1. The Court also failed mention “John Does” listed in
the case caption as defendants. The Court will now formally address those defendants.
Page 1 of 3

The detailed summary of the allegations in the complaint and legal analysis set forth in
the Court’s previous order will not be repeated here.

However, the Court observes that the

complaint alleges that Plaintiff spoke to Lt. Best in an attempted to resolve what he perceived to
be a false disciplinary report that was based on planted evidence.

Lt. Best only threatened

Plaintiff with segregation and told him to “Go complain about that like you been doing” [sic].
(see Doc. 6, p. 3). That allegation is sufficient to form the basis for a First Amendment
retaliation claim, falling under Count 1 of the complaint. Therefore, Count 1 against Lt. Best
shall proceed.
The listing of defendants in the caption of the complaint includes “John Does.” The
narrative of the complaint refers to, for example, many individuals by rank only, but does not
identify that person as “John Doe #1.” The Court cannot guess who among many unnamed
individuals mentioned in the length narrative of allegations is intended to be a defendant.
Therefore the “John Does” will be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is free to move to file
an amended complaint to plead claims against individuals he cannot identify by name, as long as
he designates the intended defendants as, for example, “John Doe #1”and “John Doe #2,” so the
Court can assess the viability of the claim asserted. Of course, ultimately the unidentified
defendants must be identified in an amended pleading.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, for the reasons stated, JOHN DOES are
DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that COUNT 1, the First Amendment retaliation
claim, shall PROCEED against Defendants DAVID G. MORRIS, ALEX JONES and LT.
BEST.
The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendant LT. BEST (as previously ordered relative

Page 2 of 3

to David G. Morris and Alex Jones): (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 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 Defendant, and the Court will require Defendant to pay the full costs of
formal service, to the extent authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
If Defendant no longer can be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff, the
employer shall furnish the Clerk with Defendant’s current work address, or, if not known,
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.
Defendant LT. BEST is 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).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 24, 2014
s/J. Phil Gilbert
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3