Engel v. People of the State of Illinois et al

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice for being duplicative of a previously filed lawsuit and for failing to include a request for relief in compliance with FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 3/10/2017. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

TIMOTHY ENGEL, #M36902
Plaintiff,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
LT. REID,
J. CAMPANELLA,
ANTHONY HUGES,
VIENNA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
SHAWNEE CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
ANDERSON,
STEWART,
FOWLER,
HERNANDEZ,
and ROB,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 17−cv–064−SMY

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Plaintiff Timothy Engel, an inmate at Shawnee Correctional Center, brings this action for
deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims he was
assaulted by various individuals at Vienna Correctional Center, in violation of the Eighth
Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. (Doc. 1). This case is now
before the Court for a preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
which provides:
(a) Screening – The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any
event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a
prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for Dismissal – On review, the court shall identify

cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the
complaint–
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or
(2) 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). Frivolousness is an objective standard that refers
to a claim that any reasonable person would find meritless. Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 102627 (7th Cir. 2000). 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). The claim of entitlement to relief must cross “the line
between possibility and plausibility.” Id. at 557. At this juncture, the factual allegations of the
pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577
F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
Upon careful review of the Complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it
appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; this action is subject to summary dismissal.
The Complaint
In his Complaint, Plaintiff makes the following allegations: During the period November
13, 2016 to November 24, 2016, Plaintiff was stabbed in his rib cage by inmate Rob; inmate
Anderson tried to stab Plaintiff; inmate Hernandez tried to knock Plaintiff out from behind his
head; inmate Stewart tried “taking [Plaintiff’s] head off with ice” and paper balls; inmate Fowler
tied to knock Plaintiff out while he was sleeping; and Lt. Reid attacked Plaintiff twice from
behind. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff also claims that “officers threaten[ed] to go back to work,”
presumably on at least one occasion, while Plaintiff was being attacked. Id. Further, the
2

Complaint alleges that the defendants have not taken action to help Plaintiff, have prevented him
from contacting an attorney or his friends, and that some defendants, including Campenella,
“have lied about being FBI.” Id. Plaintiff seeks “a court order that each of these defendant [sic]
pay compassion to Plaintiff for suffering.” (Doc. 1, p. 8).
Discussion
It is clear at the outset that Plaintiff has not requested any substantive relief in this case.
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a complaint must provide “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” and also “a demand
for the relief sought.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a). In a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, the request for relief typically includes a request for monetary damages and/or injunctive
relief. Plaintiff’s Complaint includes neither. Instead, Plaintiff merely requests that this Court
order the defendants to show Plaintiff compassion for his suffering. (Doc. 1, p. 8). This is not a
cognizable, request for relief.
Further, as noted in this Court’s Order dated January 24, 2017 (Doc. 5), Plaintiff filed
another civil rights action, Engel v. People, 17-cv-24-MJR (Jan. 11, 2017) (“prior action”), a
mere twelve days before filing this action.

Suspecting that Plaintiff intended to file the

Complaint in this action as an amended complaint in the prior action, this Court notified Plaintiff
that these two cases were filed separately and gave Plaintiff the opportunity to notify the Court if
he was seeking to file an amended complaint in the prior action instead of filing a second action.
(Doc. 5). Plaintiff never directly responded to this Order, although he did file a “Letter from
Plaintiff regarding his Trust Fund Statement” (Doc. 6) in both this case and the prior action,
seemingly acknowledging the existence of both, separate cases. Because Plaintiff failed to

3

respond to the Order requesting clarification (Doc. 5), the Court assumes that Plaintiff intended
this case to be separate from the prior action.
That being said, the Court finds that this case is duplicative of the prior action. See Serlin
v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223 (7th Cir. 1993) (one cause of action is duplicative of
another if the “claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ between the two
actions.”). The Complaint in the instant action is nearly identical to the original Complaint filed
in the prior action on January 11, 2017. Compare (Doc. 1) with 17-cv-24-MJR at Doc. 1.
Though Plaintiff did not appropriately name any defendants in that Complaint, see 17-cv-24MJR at Doc. 8, he named the same individuals, alleged the same conduct (with more or less
detail in either Complaint), and cited the same dates in his respective statements of claim.
Compare (Doc. 1) with 17-cv-24-MJR at Doc. 1. The only substantive difference between the
complaints in this case and the prior action are Plaintiff’s failure to name an adequate defendant
in the Prior action, which he cured in this action, and Plaintiff’s failure to request appropriate
relief in this action, a mistake he did not make in the prior action. Id.
Because this case is duplicative of the prior action and Plaintiff has failed to request
appropriate relief, this case will be dismissed without prejudice and without a strike. See Serlin,
3 F.3d at 223 (“As a general rule, a federal suit may be dismissed for reasons of wise judicial
administration whenever it is duplicative of a parallel action already pending in another federal
court.”) (quotation and citations omitted). Per this Court’s January 24, 2017 Order (Doc. 5),
Plaintiff will still be responsible for paying the filing fee for this action.
Notably, Plaintiff has been granted leave to amend his complaint in the prior action. See
17-cv-24-MJR at Doc. 8. If he chooses to amend in that case, he will have the opportunity to
pursue all of his intended claims against his intended defendants, in a single action. Because that
4

case will remain open despite the dismissal of this case, Plaintiff will also be shielded from any
potential statute of limitations issues surrounding his allegations.
Pending Motions
Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2), which will
be addressed in a separate order.
Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 3), which is hereby
DENIED as MOOT.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for being
duplicative of a previously filed lawsuit and for failing to include a request for relief in
compliance with FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a).
Plaintiff is 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 1 remains due and payable. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998).
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case and to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 10, 2017

s/ STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

1

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.

5