Hardy v. Illinois Department of Corrections et al

Filing 6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, in order to proceed with this action, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to submit his First Amended Complaint within 35 days of the entry of this order. (Amended Pleadings due by 6/11/2015). Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 5/6/2015. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
NEDRICK HARDY, SR.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
GOVERNOR PAT QUINN,
SALVADOR GODINEZ,
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.,
KIMBERLY BUTLER,
DOCTOR TROST,
DOCTOR BAIG,
AMY LANE,
INTERNAL AFFAIRS UNIT,
JOHN DOE #1,
JOHN DOE #2,
BETSY SPILLER, and
COUNSELOR PRICE,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 3:15-cv-00437-JPG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT, District Judge:
Plaintiff Nedrick Hardy, Sr., is currently incarcerated at the Menard Correctional Center
in Menard, Illinois. (Doc. 8 at 1, 5-8.) Proceeding pro se, Hardy has filed a complaint pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a number of employees at Menard, as well as several state officials
throughout Illinois. (Id. at 1.) Hardy raises a litany of claims regarding his time at Menard,
including claims concerning his conditions of confinement, searches of his cell, his medical and
dental care, and his access to courts. (Id. at 9.) Hardy seeks monetary damages and injunctive
relief, and he has also filed a motion for class certification. (Doc. 1-1 at 35.)

Page 1 of 5

Before a prisoner’s complaint can be served on the defendants named in his suit and the
case can proceed, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A requires district courts to review a prisoner’s complaint
and “identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint” if the
complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted” or if
it “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Here, the form of
Hardy’s complaint makes review of it unworkable, as the complaint flouts Rule 10.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 requires that “each claim founded on a separate
transaction or occurrence” be “stated in a separate count” if doing so “would promote clarity.”
FED. R. CIV. P. 10(b). This rule is designed to give each defendant notice of the claims levied
against him, as well as encourage basic organization, coherence, and intelligibility in complaints.
See Stanard v. Nygren, 658 F.3d 792, 797-98 (7th Cir. 2011) (purpose of Rule 10 is to give
“defendants fair notice of the claims against them and the grounds supporting those claims,” as
well as encourage “basic coherence” and “organization” in pleadings); see also 5C CHARLES
ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 1376 (3d ed. 1998) (“Rule 10(b) is
designed to improve the intelligibility of pleadings.”). Given these goals, Rule 10 is stretched to
its limit when a plaintiff sues numerous defendants and asserts different claims, but does not
“specify which individual defendants were alleged to be liable on each claim.” Stanard, 658
F.3d at 794. In the end, when faced with a confusing complaint, the court has the authority to
“require that allegations be grouped into logical counts that are ‘founded on’ separate
transactions or occurrences.” Alioto v. Town of Lisbon, 651 F.3d 715, 721 (7th Cir. 2011).
Here, Hardy brings the kind of unclear complaint that could benefit from the “separate
count[s]” envisioned by Rule 10. To be sure, Hardy has filed a 65-page, 165-paragraph, singlespaced missive concerning every claim he has related to Menard. Many of Hardy’s claims are
Page 2 of 5

founded on separate transactions or occurrences: his claims run the gamut from the general
conditions in the prison cells at Menard to his medical and dental care at the prison, and from
improper searches of cells to Hardy’s access to courts. (Doc. 1 at 9-35; Doc 1-1 at 1-34.)
Making matters even more unclear, Hardy often fails to specify which of the eleven defendants
named in this suit are liable for each of his separate claims, let alone how those defendants were
personally involved with his claims. Given all of these problems, the Court finds that clarity
would be promoted by Hardy filing an amended complaint consistent with Rule 10.
In drafting his amended complaint, Hardy must present each of his claims in a separate
count (labeled Count 1, Count 2, Count 3, and so on). Each count must specify which individual
defendant or defendants are liable under the count, and how those defendants were personally
involved in the alleged constitutional violation.

Mere conclusory allegations that “all

defendants” or “one or more of the defendants” are liable will not do, as those types of
allegations do not allow each defendant to respond. See Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 582 (7th
Cir. 2009) (“formulaic recitations” that all defendants are liable “does not put the defendants on
notice of what exactly they might have done to violate [the prisoner’s] rights”). In addition,
Plaintiff should avoid using legalese, conclusory statements of law, and non-specific, vague
allegations of fact. Rather, Hardy should follow the instructions on the Court’s civil rights
complaint form, which directs a plaintiff to state “when, where, how, and by whom” his rights
were violated. In doing so, he should concisely state the facts that support each count, who he
alleges is liable for each count, and how that defendant was personally involved in that count.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, in order to proceed with this action, Plaintiff is
DIRECTED to submit his First Amended Complaint within 35 days of the entry of this order
Page 3 of 5

(on or before June 11, 2015). He should label the form First Amended Complaint, and he
should use the case number for this action. The amended complaint shall split each of Plaintiff’s
claims into separate counts, labeled Count 1, Count 2, Count 3, and so on. For each count,
Plaintiff must identify the defendants who he alleges are liable for that count, and must allege
facts showing how each defendant was personally involved in the alleged unconstitutional
actions.
An amended complaint supersedes and replaces the original complaint, rendering the
original complaint void. See Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., 354 F.3d 632, 638 n.1
(7th Cir. 2004). The Court will not accept piecemeal amendments to a complaint. Thus, the
First Amended Complaint must stand on its own, without reference to any other pleading in this
case or elsewhere. Should the First Amended Complaint not conform to these requirements, it
shall be stricken. Plaintiff must also re-file any exhibits he wishes the Court to consider along
with the First Amended Complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint shall result in the
dismissal of this action with prejudice. Such dismissal shall count as one of Plaintiff’s three
allotted “strikes” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). No service shall be ordered on any
Defendant until after the Court completes its § 1915A review of the First Amended Complaint.
In order to assist Plaintiff in preparing his amended complaint, the CLERK is
DIRECTED to mail Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint form.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for Certification of the Class (Doc.
1) is held in ABEYANCE pending receipt of a First Amended Complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that screening of Hardy’s complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A is held in ABEYANCE pending receipt of a First Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of Court
Page 4 of 5

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 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: May 6, 2015
s/J. Phil Gilbert
United States District Judge

Page 5 of 5