Ernst v. Bradford et al

Filing 5

ORDER: Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a complete § 1983 complaint on or before February 16, 2017. Failure to comply with this Order shall result in dismissal of this action for failure to comply with an order of this Court. (Amended Pleadings due by 2/16/2017). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 1/19/2017. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BRUNO BOBBIE ERNST, # N08113,

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

Plaintiff,
vs.
BRADFORD,
STELION,
SIMMONS,
WHITEHEAD,
WATER,
BURTON, and
CLARK,
Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-051-SMY

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
This action is before the Court on a document filed by Plaintiff (Doc. 1) on January 9,
2017 in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. This document was
construed as a Complaint and transferred to the Southern District of Illinois on January 18, 2017.
(Doc. 2). The document is in the form of a letter in which Plaintiff narrates instances that may
give rise to § 1983 claims. It does not include a case caption or list of defendants, 1 nor does it
provide clear answers to any of the questions that can be found on this Court’s standard § 1983
complaint form, including whether Plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies, whether
defendants are employed by the state, and whether Plaintiff has brought any other lawsuits

1

Though certain individuals are listed as defendants on the case caption in CM-ECF, this was in error.
When parties are not listed in the caption of a plaintiff’s complaint, this Court will not treat them as
defendants, and any claims against them should be considered dismissed without prejudice. See FED. R.
CIV. P. 10(a) (noting that the title of the complaint “must name all the parties”); Myles v. United States,
416 F.3d 551, 551-52 (7th Cir. 2005) (holding that to be properly considered a party, a defendant must be
“specif[ied] in the caption”). There are no properly named defendants at this time in the case.
1

related to his imprisonment. Further, the only relief Plaintiff appears to be requesting in the
narrative of his letter is a transfer to Pontiac Correctional Center, and none of the individuals
mentioned in the letter are capable of providing this relief. 2
As it is written, this document does not satisfy the applicable pleading standard under
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of providing a “short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court’s jurisdiction” and “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Additionally, the allegations are insufficient to provide whoever
Plaintiff intends to name as a defendant with “fair notice of the claim and its basis,” particularly
because Plaintiff has failed to properly name any defendants to receive such notice. See Arnett v.
Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011).
Disposition
Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a complete § 1983 complaint on or before February 16,
2017. Failure to comply with this Order shall result in dismissal of this action for failure to
comply with an order of this Court. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
It is strongly recommended that Plaintiff use the forms designed for use in this District
for § 1983 actions. He should label the form, “First Amended Complaint,” and he should use the
case number for this action (i.e. 17-cv-051-SMY). The pleading 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. Plaintiff should
attempt to include the facts of his case in chronological order, inserting each defendant’s name
where necessary to identify the actors. Plaintiff should refrain from filing unnecessary exhibits.
Plaintiff should include only related claims in his new complaint. Claims found to be unrelated
2

See Gonzalez v. Feinerman, 663 F.3d 311, 315 (7th Cir. 2011) (warden is the proper defendant in
deliberate indifference case requesting injunctive relief as person “responsible for ensuring that any
injunctive relief is carried out.”).
2

to one another will be severed into new cases, new case numbers will be assigned, and additional
filing fees will be assessed. To enable Plaintiff to comply with this order, the CLERK is
DIRECTED to mail Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint form, along with a copy of the
original Complaint and this Order. The Clerk of Court is also DIRECTED to remove all parties
mistakenly listed as defendants on CM-ECF and include UNKNOWN PARTY as the defendant.
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 piecemeal amendments to the original Complaint.
Thus, the First 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
First Amended Complaint. The First Amended Complaint is subject to review pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Plaintiff is further ADVISED that his obligation to pay the filing fee for this action was
incurred at the time the action was filed, thus the filing fee of $350.00 3 remains due and payable,
regardless of whether Plaintiff elects to file a First Amended Complaint.

See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998).
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 result in dismissal of this action
for want of prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
3

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914, effective May 1, 2013, an additional $50.00 administrative fee is also to
be assessed in all civil actions, unless pauper status has been granted.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 19, 2017
s/ STACI M. YANDLE
U.S. District Judge

4