Allen v. Westfall et al

Filing 23

ORDER denying 22 Motion for Rescission/Modification of Filing Restriction. The FILING RESTRICTION REMAINS IN EFFECT and is EXTENDED until Allen has paid his outstanding filing fees of $8,8350.00. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to continue ret urning any documents submitted in violation of the Order Imposing Filing Restriction (Doc. 15 , p. 5) to Allen unfiled. Allen may seek modification or rescission of this Order by filing a motion in this Court no earlier than two years from the date of entry of this Order. Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 10/28/2021. (jrj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RODERICK T. ALLEN,
#N94327,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 15-cv-00175-SPM

v.
J. ENGELAGE, and
C/O REYNOLDS,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MCGLYNN, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court for consideration of a Motion for Rescission/Modification
of Filing Restriction filed by Plaintiff Roderick Allen. (Doc. 22). For the following reasons, the
motion is denied.
On August 18, 2015, the Court entered sanctions against Plaintiff Allen for continuously
filing lawsuits without the payment of the required fees. (Doc. 15). Allen was restricted from filing
any new civil actions in this District until his outstanding filing fees of $6,625.00 were paid in full.
(Id. at 5) (citing Support Sys. Int’l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (1995); Newlin v. Helman, 123 F.3d
429, 437 (7th Cir. 1997)). The filing restriction did not extend to a notice of appeal filed in this
case, a petition for writ of habeas corpus, or any pleadings filed as a defendant in another criminal
or civil case. (Id.). Further, it was not perpetual. Allen was informed that he “may seek
modification or rescission of this Order, by filing a motion in this Court no earlier than two years
from the date of entry of this Order, assuming that he fails to pay the balance of his filing fees
within that two years.” (Id.) (emphasis in original).
Page 1 of 4

Allen now asks the Court, for a second time, to lift the filing restriction so that he may
resume filing civil suits in this District. Specifically, he would like to commence a lawsuit and
petition the Court for an injunction regarding lack of adequate treatment for an eye condition.
Allen claims that he first reported a gray substance on his eyes to medical staff at Menard
Correctional Center in 2008. No further treatment or evaluation was ordered. Allen did not
complain or report issues regarding the gray substance until recently in March 2021. He has
observed that the gray substance has increased in size and “almost completely covers the iris on
both eyes.” (Doc. 22, p. 3). He believes his vision will become impeded when the gray substance
begins to cover his pupils, and he will be blind by the end of 2021. Allen had an appointment with
Dr. Siddiqui and CMT Lang on March 16, 2021. He does not claim he reported issues with his
eyes at this appointment, only that Dr. Siddiqui and CMT Lang refused to provide affidavits
regarding his physical deterioration and excessive weight loss, the subject of another lawsuit that
was previously dismissed in 2017. See Allen v. Unidentified Person, 17-cv-00968-MJR (S.D. Ill.
filed Sept. 7, 2017). Allen does not claim that he has been denied treatment for his eyes, only that
he would like to seek an injunction “preventing excessive delay in receiving evaluation and
treatment.” (Doc. 22, p. 2).
The Court declines to lift the filing restriction at this time. Allen is a litigious inmate, who
has amassed significant unpaid filing fees in this District. Since the date that the filing restriction
was imposed, he has made no effort to pay the fees he owes this Court or explain why he has not
done so. In fact, his fees have only increased, and Allen now owes $8,835.00 in unpaid district and
appellate court fees. 1 Undeterred by the filing ban, Allen is again seeking to file another frivolous
Allen v. Chapman, No. 11-cv-1130-MJR (S.D. Ill. dismissed Aug. 29, 2012) ($350.00); Allen v. Godinez, No. 12cv-936-GPM (S.D. Ill. dismissed Oct. 18, 2012) ($350.00); Allen v. Harrington, No. 13-cv-725-GPM (S.D. Ill.
dismissed Aug. 23, 2013) ($400.00); Allen v. Bower, No. 13-cv-931-MJR (S.D. Ill. dismissed Mar. 17, 2014)
($400.00); Allen v. Cartwright, No. 14-cv-98-MJR-SJW (S.D. Ill. dismissed Aug. 22, 2015) ($350.00); Allen v.
Chapman, No. 14-cv-348-JPG (S.D. Ill. dismissed Jun. 24, 2014) ($400.00); Allen v. Mennenrich, No. 14-cv-380-JPG
1

Page 2 of 4

action with this Court. In describing the case he intends to file regarding delay of medical
treatment, Allen confirms that he has not exhausted his administrative remedies and seeks to file
a civil complaint in federal court before doing so. (Doc. 22, p. 1, 6). See Walker v. Thompson, 288
F.3d 1005, 1009-10 (7th Cir. 2002) (“the existence of a valid affirmative defense is so plain from
the face of the complaint that the suit can be regarded as frivolous”). He reported issues with his
eyes for the first time sometime in March and turned around and filed his motion in this case on
May 4, 2021, without giving the facility time to fully address his complaints.
Not only does Allen wish to initiate a new lawsuit regarding an issue he has not exhausted,
but he also is attempting to circumvent a previous court order. Allen states he wants to obtain a
court order directing Dr. Siddiqui and CMT Lang to provide affidavits on his deteriorated physical
appearance. (Doc. 22, p. 6). As mentioned, this request seems to be related to claims he previously
asserted in 2017 regarding dramatic weight loss and deterioration of physical appearance caused
by an unidentified noxious substance. Allen v. Unidentified Person, No. 17-cv-00968-MJR (S.D.
Ill. filed Sept. 7, 2017). In that case, the Court found that Allen had not met his burden of
demonstrating that a TRO, preliminary injunction, or imminent danger exception to proceed IFP
was warranted. The Complaint was ultimately dismissed pursuant to the filing restriction, and
Allen still owes the $400.00 filing fee. Id. (dismissed Sept. 19, 2017). The Court will not allow
Allen to file a new case in order to continue pursuing these previous claims, while his filing fee

(S.D. Ill. dismissed July 7, 2014) ($400.00); Allen v. Hanks, No. 14-cv-883-JPG (S.D. Ill. dismissed Nov. 3, 2014)
($400.00); Allen v. Engelage, No. 15-cv-175-MJR (S.D. Ill. dismissed Aug. 18, 2015) (this case) ($400.00); Allen v.
Dunbar, No. 15-cv-587-MJR (S.D. Ill. dismissed Aug. 18, 2015) ($400.00); Allen v. Hanks, No. 14-cv-00591-JPGPMF (S.D. Ill. dismissed Sept. 23, 2015) ($400.00); Allen v. Hanks, No. 15-cv-00863-SMY (S.D. Ill. dismissed Jan.
4, 2016) ($400.00); Allen v. Asselmeier, No. 15-cv-00334-NJR-DGW (S.D. Ill. dismissed Sept. 23, 2015) ($350.00);
Allen v. Unidentified Person, No. 17-cv-00968-MJR (S.D. Ill. dismissed Sept. 14, 2017) ($400.00); Allen v. Chapman,
App. No. 12-3162 (7th Cir. dismissed Jan. 17, 2013) ($455.00); Allen v. Grooves, App. No. 12-3543 (7th Cir.
dismissed Jan. 16, 2013) ($455.00); Allen v. Bower, App. No. 14-2249 (7th Cir., dismissed Jan. 23, 2015) ($505.00);
Allen v. Lang, App. No. 15-1236 (7th Cir. dismissed July 15, 2015) ($505.00); Allen v. Lang, App. No. 15-1259 (7th
Cir. dismissed July 15, 2015) ($505.00); Allen v. Hanks, App. No. 15-1491 (7th Cir. dismissed Sept. 17, 2015)
($505.00); Allen v. Hanks, App. No. 15-3288 (7th Cir. dismissed Dec. 31, 2015) ($505.00).

Page 3 of 4

for the original case remains unpaid.
As Allen has made no attempt to pay his filing fees and again seeks to engage in frivolous
litigation, the Motion for Rescission/Modification of Filing Restriction (Doc. 22) is DENIED. In
light of the above, Allen’s FILING RESTRICTION REMAINS IN EFFECT and is
EXTENDED until Allen has paid his outstanding filing fees of $8,8350.00. The Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to continue returning any documents submitted in violation of the Order Imposing
Filing Restriction (Doc. 15, p. 5) to Allen unfiled. Allen may seek modification or rescission of
this Order, by filing a motion in this Court no earlier than two years from the date of entry of this
new Order, assuming that he fails to pay the balance of his filing fees within that two years.
Finally, Allen is FURTHER ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep
the Clerk and each opposing party informed of any change in his address, and that the Court will
not independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later than
seven (7) days after a change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this Order will cause a
delay in the transmission of court documents.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 28, 2021
s/Stephen P. McGlynn
STEPHEN P. MCGLYNN
United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4