Johnson v. Shah et al

Filing 10

ORDER: Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to do the following within thirty-five days (on or before September 29, 2015): (1) confirm, in writing, that Documents 1 and 1-1 represent his complete complaint; or (2) file a motion for leave to amend the complai nt and a proposed amended complaint. To assist Plaintiff in complying with this Order, the CLERK is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with a copy of Documents 1 and 1-1, as well as a blank civil rights complaint form.Failure to follow this Order will result in dismissal of this case. (Amended Pleadings due by 9/29/2015). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 8/25/2015. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TAVARIS JOHNSON, #R-50459,
Plaintiff,
vs.
VIPIN SHAH,
WEXFORD MEDICAL SOURCES,
CANTINA FOOD SERVICE,
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, TY BATES,
SUE ANN BAILY, THOMAS SPILLER,
and GLADYSE TAYLOR,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 15-cv-00815-SMY

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Plaintiff

Tavaris

Johnson,

an

inmate

who

is

currently

incarcerated

at

Pinckneyville Correctional Center (“Pinckneyville”), brings this pro se action for alleged
violations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Docs. 1, 1-1). Plaintiff claims that
Pinckneyville officials responded to his numerous health complaints with deliberate indifference,
in violation of the Eighth Amendment (“Count 1A”) (Doc. 1, pp. 7-9). He also claims that the
soy-based diet and the “two-meal-per-day” policy at Pinckneyville violate his rights under the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments (“Count 2B”) (Doc. 1, pp. 10-11). Finally, the complaint
raises a conspiracy claim against various prison officials (“Count XVI”) (Doc. 1-1, p. 18).
In connection with these claims, Plaintiff sues the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”),
Gladyse Taylor (IDOC director), Ty Bates (IDOC deputy director), Thomas Spiller
(Pinckneyville warden), Vipin Shah (Pinckneyville doctor), Wexford Medical Sources

Page 1 of 3

(“Wexford”), Cantina Food Services (“Cantina”), and Sue Ann Baily (food services
administrator) for monetary damages and a prison transfer (Doc. 1 pp. 12-13).
This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. However, the Court is unable to screen the complaint at this time because it
appears to be incomplete. The complaint consists of twenty-one pages, nineteen of which are
numbered and filed out of order. Plaintiff’s statement of claim sets forth two claims, i.e., “Count
1A” (a medical claim) and “Count 2B” (a soy diet claim) (Doc. 1, pp. 7-11). The final pages of
the pleading also refer to “Count XVI” (a conspiracy claim) (Doc. 1-1, pp. 17-18). It is unclear
whether Plaintiff inadvertently omitted Counts 3-15 or simply numbered his three claims
incorrectly.
Further, the list of exhibits refers to a 9-page document offered in support of a claim
under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) (Doc. 1, p. 13). However, the complaint
does not mention an ADA claim, and the 9-page exhibit is not included with the complaint.
Before the Court can screen the complaint, Plaintiff must address these issues.
Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to do the following within thirty-five days (on or before
September 29, 2015): (1) confirm, in writing, that Documents 1 and 1-1 represent his complete
complaint; or (2) file a motion for leave to amend the complaint and a proposed amended
complaint.
If Plaintiff chooses the second option, he is strongly encouraged to use this
Court’s standard civil rights complaint form to prepare his amended complaint. He should label
it “First Amended Complaint” and use this case number. 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

Page 2 of 3

piecemeal amendments to the original complaint. Thus, the amended complaint must stand on
its own, without reference to any previous pleading, and Plaintiff must re-file any exhibits he
wishes the Court to consider along with the amended complaint. The amended complaint is
subject to review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. To assist Plaintiff in complying with this
Order, the CLERK is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with a copy of Documents 1 and 1-1, as
well as a blank civil rights complaint form.
Failure to follow this Order will result in dismissal of this case. FED. R. CIV. 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).
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
cause a delay in the transmission of court documents and may also result in dismissal of this
action for want of prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 25, 2015
s/ STACI M. YANDLE
U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3