Graham, Jr v. Watson et al

Filing 24

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, consistent with the Court's Order dated November 2, 2015 (Doc. 7), all Block AA Offenders other than Tyrone Graham and Gerald Whitton are DISMISSED without prejudice from this action. See attached order for details. (Amended Pleadings due by 2/16/2016) (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TYRONE GRAHAM, Jr., # 432985,
GERALD WHITTON, II,
and BLOCK AA,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
RICHARD WATSON,
PHILLIP McLAURIN,
and UNKNOWN PARTY,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 15-cv-01114-NJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
This matter is once again before the Court for case management. Plaintiff Tyrone
Graham, Jr. filed the original complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 8, 2015.
(Doc. 1). In the complaint, he alleges that all “Block AA Offenders” at St. Clair County Jail were
subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement beginning on August 11, 2015. (Doc. 1,
p. 5). On that date, thirty offenders were moved from Block AA to the gym when a light broke in
their cell block. They were forced to share a single toilet and eat and sleep amidst pests on the
gym floor. The only relief sought in the complaint is an Order requiring the Jail to return the
Block AA Offenders to their cell block “with better living conditions.” (Id. at 6).
The Court entered an initial order in this matter on November 2, 2015. (Doc. 7). In it, the
Court pointed out that the action appeared to involve as many as thirty Block AA Offenders.
The case caption referred to “Block AA” as a plaintiff. Documents attached to the complaint
included the signatures of other Block AA Offenders. The statement of claim was written in the
third person, and the request for relief pertained to all Block AA Offenders.
Page 1 of 5

The Court therefore ordered all Block AA Offenders to advise the Court whether they
wished to proceed together in group litigation. (Doc. 7). The Court first warned them of the risks
and costs associated with pursuing their claims together in a single action. See Boriboune v.
Berge, 391 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 2004). They were given until December 7, 2015, to respond.
Any non-lead plaintiff interested in participating in this group action was required to so
advise the Court by the deadline and either prepay the full $400.00 filing fee or file a properly
completed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) motion. If, by that deadline, any non-lead plaintiff failed to
communicate with the Court or indicated in writing that he was not interested in participating in
this action, the Court explained that the plaintiff would not be considered a party to this action
and would not incur a filing fee for the action.
In response, Gerald Whitton, II, filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis,
on November 30, 2015. (Doc. 17). His actions suggest that Plaintiff Whitton wishes to proceed
with this group litigation. The “lead plaintiff,” Tyrone Graham, filed a letter with the Court on
December 2, 2015 (Doc. 18), in which he indicates that he no longer wants to proceed with
group litigation. No other Block AA Offenders responded to the Order.
Given the conflicting information received from Plaintiffs Graham and Whitton, the
Court will now require these two remaining plaintiffs to clarify how they wish to proceed with
their claims. Until they do so, the Court will refrain from conducting its preliminary review of
this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, consistent with the Court’s Order dated
November 2, 2015 (Doc. 7), all Block AA Offenders other than Tyrone Graham and
Gerald Whitton are DISMISSED without prejudice from this action. No filing fee is assessed
against them in this case. They are free to pursue their claims in separate actions. Should they

Page 2 of 5

choose to do so, each Plaintiff will be obligated to pay a filing in the newly-filed action.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to TERMINATE “Block AA” as a plaintiff in CM/ECF and
send a copy of this Order to each of the “Block AA Offenders” at St. Clair County Jail:
TYRONE GRAHAM, MICHAEL R. BROCK, FERNANDO MORGAN, JAMAV DELK,
JAYLIN DTRUHAN, ARRICK NEWBERN, TRISTON J. ROBERTS, GERALD
WHITTON, II, ANTHONY PARKS, CHARLES GRIFFIN, TIMOTHY JOHNSON,
RICHIE CULBERSON, JAYLEN MAYS, JAMES DABBS, ERNEST WHITLEY,
DANNY JULIAN, BRIAN PURSELL, and JOHNNIE WILLIAMS.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the only two plaintiffs remaining in the action at this
time are TYRONE GRAHAM and GERALD WHITTON, II.
Because it is not clear whether they wish to pursue their claims together or separately,
Plaintiffs Graham and Whitton, II, are ORDERED to do the following on or before February
16, 2016:
1.

If Plaintiffs Graham and Whitton wish to proceed together in this action, they are

ORDERED to file a single “First Amended Complaint,” containing both of their names in the
case caption and both of their signatures. The amended complaint must refer to this case number,
Case No. 15-cv-01114-NJR, and include a letter asking the Court to allow Plaintiffs to proceed
together in this action. If they choose this route, each Plaintiff shall be responsible for paying a
filing fee for this action; or
2.

If Plaintiffs Graham and Whitton wish to proceed separately with their claims in

two different actions, they are ORDERED to each file a separate “First Amended Complaint,”
containing only one Plaintiff’s name in the case caption and that Plaintiff’s signature. Each
Plaintiff’s amended complaint must refer to this case number, Case No. 15-cv-01114-NJR, but

Page 3 of 5

include a letter asking the Court to allow Plaintiffs to proceed in two separate cases. Upon
receipt of this letter and the two amended complaints, the Court will allow Plaintiff Graham to
proceed with his claims in this case, and he shall pay a filing fee for this action. The Court will
then sever Plaintiff Whitton’s case into a separate action, assign a new case number in that
action, and assess a filing fee in the newly-severed case only.
To ensure compliance with this Order, the Clerk is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff Graham
and Whitton a blank civil rights complaint form for use is preparing an amended complaint.
The Court strongly recommends that Plaintiffs use the form(s). The amended complaint
supersedes and replaces the original complaint, rending it 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 the original complaint. Thus, the amended complaint must stand on its own,
without reference to any other pleading. Plaintiff must also re-file any exhibits he wishes the
Court to consider.
Plaintiffs should label the form(s), “First Amended Complaint,” and use the case number
for this action. Both should refer to the constitutional or statutory ground(s) for relief, name the
proper defendant(s), and include a request for relief (e.g., monetary damages and/or injunctive
relief). 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. Plaintiffs should attempt to include the facts of his
case in chronological order, inserting each Defendant’s name where necessary to identify the
actors. Plaintiffs should refrain from filing unnecessary exhibits and include only related claims
in the amended complaint(s). Claims against different defendants that are found to be unrelated

Page 4 of 5

to one another will be severed into new cases, new case numbers will be assigned, and additional
filing fees will be assessed.
Should one or both Plaintiffs fail to file his “First Amended Complaint” within the
allotted time or consistent with the instructions set forth in this Order, the entire case shall be
dismissed with prejudice. 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); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Further, the dismissal shall count as one of that Plaintiff’s three allotted “strikes” under the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Finally, Plaintiffs Graham and Whitton are 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 a plaintiff’s 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: January 12, 2016
__________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 5 of 5