Suggs v. Belleville, Illinois et al

Filing 10

ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice. This dismissal shall count as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 8/16/2016. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOSEPH E. SUGGS,

Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF BELLEVILLE, ILL.,
JAMIE NOVAK, PATRICK KOEBBE,
AM OWENS, and
METRO. CORR. CTR.,

Defendants.

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

CIVIL NO. 16-cv-453-NJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
On May 17, 2016, the Court dismissed the complaint in this action for failure to state a
claim and ordered Plaintiff, Joseph E. Suggs, to file an amended complaint within 35 days (by
June 21, 2016) (Doc. 7). To date, the Court has not received an amended complaint. On May 23,
2016, however, the Court received a document captioned “Statement of the Claim (Continued)”
(Doc. 8), which was similar to the “Statement of the Claim” he filed on May 6, 2016 (Doc. 6).
Both documents listed legal theories against parties named in the original complaint, but neither
document provided any facts connecting the defendants’ conduct to the proffered legal theories
(Id.).
Suggs’s supplemental filings are insufficient to state a claim or to comply with this
Court’s May 17, 2016 Order. In that Order, the Court expressly notified Suggs that it was not
acceptable to file piecemeal amendments or additions to his original complaint and that the
original complaint would be dismissed in its entirety (Doc. 7 at 2-3). The Order also expressly

Page 1 of 2

warned Suggs that failure to file an amended complaint, captioned “First Amended Complaint,”
would result in dismissal of his action with prejudice (Id.). Despite the Court’s guidance, Suggs
attempted to do the very thing the Court directed him not to do by filing piecemeal amendments
or additions (Docs. 6, 8).
Moreover, even if the Court were to simply conjoin Suggs’s three filings and to construe
them as a single complaint, the filings are insufficient to state a claim against the defendants.
None of the filings contains factual allegations specific to the named defendants, and thus the
filings suffer from the same infirmity—they fail to put defendants on notice of any facts giving
rise to a claim against them. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (1955)
(stating that bare labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of elements is insufficient to
state a claim); Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 764 (7th Cir. 2003) (a “short and plain”
statement of the claim suffices under FED. R. CIV. P. 8 if it notifies the defendant of the principal
events upon which the claims are based); Brokaw v. Mercer County, 235 F.3d 1000, 1024 (7th
Cir. 2000) (“notice pleading requires the plaintiff to allege just enough to put the defendant on
notice of facts providing a right to recovery”).
In light of the insufficiency of Suggs’s filings and his failure to comply with the Court’s
order in the time allotted, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. This dismissal shall count
as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter
Judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff Suggs.
DATED: August 16, 2016

__________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2