Merritte v. Baldwin et al

Filing 51

ORDER DENYING 49 Motion to Intervene. Clerk of send copy of Order to proposed intervenor Mays. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 6/8/17. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CALVIN L. MERRITTE,
Plaintiff,
v.
C/O BRAKE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:16-cv-1020-NJR-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court is the Motion to Intervene filed by proposed intervenor,
John Mays, on May 8, 2017 (Doc. 49). The Motion is DENIED.
John Mays, an inmate incarcerated at the Hill Correctional Center (where Plaintiff is
currently housed) seeks to intervene in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24,
among others. Mays claims that he is being retaliated against by John Baldwin (the Director of
Illinois Department of Corrections), and the Warden at Western Illinois CC and other prisons, for
filing grievances and lawsuits in a manner identical to the retaliation allegedly suffered by
Merritte. Mays claims that the “habit and routine practice” of retaliation by IDOC officials and
any decision on Merritte’s claim would have an effect on his claims and that he is a necessary party
to this action.
Merritte is proceeding on only two discrete counts in this matter: that he was retaliated
against in September 2014 by Correctional Officer Ochs and that he was subjected to a dangerous
inmate at that same time by various other correctional officers. Both of these events occurred at
the Lawrence CC. Merritte is not proceeding on any claim against Baldwin or any warden of any
facility nor is Merritte proceeding on a wide-ranging retaliation claim against any person
Page 1 of 2

employed at Hill CC or at any other facility. Merritte also is not proceeding on any claims of
on-going violations of his Constitutional rights. As such, Mays’ basis for seeking to intervene,
even if it was permissible, is without a foundation. If Mays believes that his Constitutional rights
have been or are being violated, he must file a separate lawsuit (after exhausting his administrative
remedies) and pay the appropriate filing fee. Intervenor’s Motion is accordingly DENIED (Doc.
49).
DATED: June 8, 2017

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 2 of 2