Black v. Brown et al

Filing 8

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.IT IS FURTHER 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 5/23/2016). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 4/18/2016. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RODNEY EUGENE BLACK,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SHERIFF KEITH BROWN, and
JILL MOORE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 16-cv-00325-MJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, Chief District Judge:
Plaintiff Rodney Black is currently incarcerated at the Saline County Jail, located in
Harrisburg, Illinois. Proceeding pro se, Black has filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging that Sheriff Keith Brown and Deputy Jill Moore have violated his constitutional rights.
This matter is now before the Court for a preliminary review of Black’s complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under § 1915A, the Court shall review a “complaint in a civil
action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
government entity.” During this preliminary review under § 1915A, the Court “shall 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.”
An action or claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Conversely, a complaint is

Page 1 of 5

plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Although the Court is obligated to accept factual allegations as true,
see Smith v. Peters, 631 F.3d 418, 419 (7th Cir. 2011), some factual allegations may be so
sketchy or implausible that they fail to provide sufficient notice of a plaintiff’s claim. Brooks v.
Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009). Additionally, Courts “should not accept as adequate
abstract recitations of the elements of a cause of action or conclusory legal statements.” Id. At
the same time, however, the factual allegations of a pro se complaint are to be liberally
construed. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted. He appears to
be alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims concerning his thumb and mental
health treatment, however, he has not pleaded enough facts to assert a plausible claim as to either
allegation. He does not name as defendants either the surgeon who failed to perform surgery on
his thumb, nor the psychiatrist who allegedly prescribed Plaintiff anti-anxiety medication without
actually seeing him or his medical file. Instead, his two assertions of liability concern “Saline
Counties [sic.] negligence” in delaying thumb surgery for twelve weeks, and Jill Moore’s
interference with Plaintiff’s attempts to receive psychiatric treatment. Plaintiff, however, does
not state why his thumb surgery was delayed or who at Saline County is responsible for the
delay. As to Moore, Plaintiff simply states that he has “been repeatedly denied to see psychiatrist
by Jill Moore,” and that “Jill Moore allegedly called Jail Doctor and he placed me on a couple of
anxiety medications, without benefit of seeing me or . . . [my] psychiatric transcripts.” (Doc. 1 at
5.) He does not include any other facts relating to her intentions or the circumstances

Page 2 of 5

undergirding her action that would allow the Court to determine whether or not Ms. Moore
violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed and he must file a new
complaint that pleads “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. As he drafts his amended complaint, Plaintiff should be mindful of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. Rule 20 allows a plaintiff to join as many defendants as he
wants in one action so long as “any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in
the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
transaction or occurrences” and “any question of law or fact common to all defendant will arise
in the action.” FED. R. CIV. P. 20(a)(2). What a prisoner cannot do under Rule 20 is join
unrelated claims against separate groups of defendants in one suit — a “litigant cannot throw all
of his grievances, against dozens of different parties, into one stewpot.” Wheeler v. Wexford
Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2012). This barrier against multi-defendant,
multi-claim suits avoids the procedural “morass” that comes with these types of cases, and also
ensures that prisoners pay necessary filing fees and incur strikes as envisioned by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
Here, Plaintiff asserts a medical claim relating to his thumb and another one relating to
his mental health treatment. To the extent his claims are directed at discrete groups of
defendants, he should restrict his amended complaint to claims against one defendant or group of
defendants, and raise unrelated claims against another defendant or group of defendants in
another suit. If he violates Rule 20 in his amended complaint, claims may be severed sua sponte.
Plaintiff should keep in mind that suing Sheriff Keith Brown without alleging any personal
involvement on his behalf in Plaintiff’s alleged injuries is not enough to satisfy Rule 20.

Page 3 of 5

One final not is necessary as regards Plaintiff’s Motion to Add Evidence (Doc. 7). The
Court does not accept piecemeal amendments to complaints. If Plaintiff wishes to inform this
Court of additional evidence, he should file one or more amended complaint as instructed by the
Court. Accordingly, the Motion to Add Evidence (Doc. 7) is DENIED.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED
without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER 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
(on or before May 23, 2016). He should label the form First Amended Complaint, and he should
use the case number for this action. For each of Plaintiff’s counts, Plaintiff should state, in
chronological order, what happened to him that constituted a deprivation of his constitutional
rights, and who was personally involved.
An amended complaint supersedes 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. 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.

Page 4 of 5

In order to assist Plaintiff in preparing his amended complaint, the CLERK is
DIRECTED to mail Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint form.
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 result in dismissal of this action for want of
prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 18, 2016

s/ MICHAEL J. REAGAN
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Page 5 of 5