Oliver v. Lashbrook et al

Filing 8

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that COUNT 14 is DISMISSED with prejudice against Defendants RAUNER and BALDWIN (i.e., State defendants) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Defendants RAUNER and BALDWIN are DISMISSED with prejudice fr om this action because they are named in connection with no other claims. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that COUNTS 10-13 (i.e., Menard claims), which are unrelated to COUNTS 1-9 (i.e., Pinckneyville claims), are severed into a new case against Defendants BUTLER, LYERLA, and SCOTT. (Amended Pleadings due by 3/28/2017). Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 2/23/2017. (tjk)

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

Suing as King Michael Oliver,
# B-89925,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 17-cv-00169-DRH

BRUCE RAUNER,
JOHN R. BALDWIN,
LYERLA,
SGT. SCOTT,
KIMBERLY BUTLER,
JACQUELINE LASHBROOK,
RICHARD E. SWINEY,
CHARLES HECK,
LESLIE McCARTY,
BART A. LIND,
CAROL A. McBRIDE,
PHILLIP O. BAKER,
MAILROOM CLERK(s),
and FOOD SERVICE SUPERVISOR(s),
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
Plaintiff Michael Oliver, an inmate who is currently incarcerated at
Pinckneyville Correctional Center (“Pinckneyville”), brings this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for numerous deprivations of his constitutional
rights that occurred at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”) and Pinckneyville
Correctional Center (“Pinckneyville”). (Docs. 1, 1-1). He seeks monetary damages

against a group of Menard defendants,1 Pinckneyville defendants, 2 and State
defendants. 3 (Doc. 1, pp. 1, 13). He also seeks injunctive relief. (Doc. 1, pp. 1, 56).
Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff originally filed this action in the United States
District Court for the Central District of Illinois on February 15, 2017. (Doc. 1).
The Central District transferred the case to this District, after noting that the
claims described in the Complaint arose at two prisons located in this federal
judicial district. (Doc. 5). This case was opened on February 17, 2017. (Doc. 6).
Plaintiff’s Complaint is now before the Court for preliminary review
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

1

The Menard defendants include Warden Kimberly Butler, Major Lyerla, and Sergeant Scott.
(Doc. 1, p. 1).
2

The Pinckneyville defendants include Warden Jacqueline Lashbrook, Richard Swiney, Jr.,
Lieutenant Charles Heck, Leslie McCarty, Bart Lind, Carol McBride, Phillip Baker, Unknown
Mailroom Clerk(s), and Food Service Supervisor(s). (Doc. 1, p. 1).

3

The State defendants include Governor Bruce Rauner and Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”) Director John Baldwin. (Doc. 1, p. 1).

objective standard that refers to a claim that any reasonable person would find
meritless. Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026-27 (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 (Doc. 1, pp. 1-6) and supporting
exhibits (Doc. 1, pp. 7-23; Doc. 1-1, pp. 1-19), the Court deems it appropriate to
exercise its authority under § 1915A and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by
dismissing certain claims and severing others. Before screening the claims that
remain in this action, however, Plaintiff shall be granted an opportunity to file an
amended complaint.
The Complaint
The Complaint consists of a list of claims against officials at Menard for
violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights in 2015. (Doc. 1, pp. 2-5). Plaintiff
also includes a list of claims against officials at Pinckneyville for violations of his
constitutional rights that occurred after transferring there in late 2015.

Id.

Finally, he brings claims against high-ranking State officials based on their
supervisory roles over both prisons. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-13).

Plaintiff organized the Complaint into 7 separate counts. (Doc. 1, pp. 2-5).
Each count consists of multiple additional claims with few factual allegations. Id.
The Court has done its best to separate each count into distinct claims below.
Because the Complaint sets forth few additional factual allegations, it is not
necessary to separately summarize the allegations here.
Omitted from the below list of claims are any additional claims set forth in
Plaintiff’s exhibits to the Complaint.

(Doc. 1, pp. 7-23; Doc. 1-1, pp. 1-19).

Plaintiff filed several exhibits that he refers to as “Amendments.”

Id.

These

“Amendments” expand upon his claims. Id. In “Amendment A,” for example, he
includes claims against officials at Jackson County Jail, Menard, and
Pinckneyville.

(Doc. 1, p. 7).

Many of these individuals are not named as

defendants in this action.
In “Amendment B,” Plaintiff describes a disciplinary ticket that he received
at Pinckneyville on June 16, 2016.

(Doc. 1, p. 8).

He does not refer to this

incident in the Complaint. Id. It is therefore unclear whether he intends to bring
a claim against any prison officials based on it.
Plaintiff’s next exhibit consists of a “Civil Complaint Pursuant to the Federal
Tort Claims Act and/or State Tort Law” against Inmate Logan, who allegedly
assaulted him at Pinckneyville on December 7, 2016. (Doc. 1, pp. 9-10). It is not
clear whether Plaintiff has already filed this complaint as a separate action, or
whether he intends to do so in the future. Id. If he intended to bring a claim

against Inmate Logan in this action, Plaintiff has not named this inmate as a
defendant.
In “Amendment C,” Plaintiff indicates that he would like to bring still
another claim for the denial of law library access at Pinckneyville against C/O
Belz.

(Doc. 1, pp. 11-13).

Plaintiff indicates that he would like to add this

individual as a defendant. Id.
In addition, Plaintiff includes a series of exhibits in the following order:
Exhibit 4 (Doc. 1, p. 14), Exhibit 6 (Doc. 1, p. 15), Exhibit X (Doc. 1, p. 16),
Exhibit 10A (Doc. 1, p. 17), Exhibit W (Doc. 1, pp. 18-19), Exhibit 10B (Doc. 1,
pp. 20-21), Exhibit Z (Doc. 1, pp. 22-23), Exhibit Z2 Squared (Doc. 1-1, p. 1),
Exhibit T (Doc. 1-1, pp. 2-3), Exhibit T2 (Doc. 1-1, p. 4), Exhibit OR1 (Doc. 1-1,
p. 5), Exhibit 17 (Doc. 1-1, p. 6), Exhibit 18 (Doc. 1-1, p. 7), Unnumbered
Exhibits (Doc. 1-1, pp. 8-13), Exhibit IRA (Doc. 1-1, p. 14), Exhibit 29 (Doc. 1-1,
pp. 15-19), etc. Given that Plaintiff’s system of organizing these exhibits makes
no sense, it is not clear whether he omitted exhibits from his filing.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages against the defendants. (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6).
He also vaguely alludes to injunctive relief. (Doc. 1, p. 1).
Merits Review Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
To facilitate the orderly management of future proceedings in this case, and
in accordance with the objectives of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(e) and
10(b), the Court deems it appropriate to organize the claims in Plaintiff’s pro se
Complaint into the following counts:

Count 1 – Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against prison
officials who did not intervene on behalf of Plaintiff when he was
attacked by Inmate Logan in the lunch line at Pinckneyville on
December 7, 2016. (Doc. 1, p. 2, “Count 1”).
Count 2 - Fourteenth Amendment claim against C/O Swiney,
Lieutenant Heck, and Warden Lashbrook for issuing Plaintiff a
disciplinary ticket and punishing him with 30 days in segregation
and 10 days of lost good conduct credit for the inmate attack that
occurred at Pinckneyville on December 7, 2016. (Doc. 1, p. 2,
“Count 1”).
Count 3 - Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs claim against prison officials who denied Plaintiff
medical treatment for the injuries he sustained during the attack by
Inmate Logan at Pinckneyville on December 7, 2016. (Doc. 1, p. 2,
“Count 1”).
Count 4 – Fourteenth Amendment claim against ARB Member
McCarty for ignoring Plaintiff’s grievances regarding the inmate
attack that occurred at Pinckneyville in order to prevent him from
exhausting his administrative remedies. (Doc. 1, p. 2, “Count 3”).
Count 5 – Eighth Amendment claim against prison officials who
served Plaintiff spoiled pulled chicken and caused him to suffer from
symptoms of food poisoning at Pinckneyville on or around October
14, 2016. (Doc. 1, pp. 3-4, “Count 4”).
Count 6 – Eighth Amendment claim against prison officials who
exhibited deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s symptoms of food
poisoning after he ate spoiled pulled chicken at Pinckneyville on or
around October 14, 2016. (Doc. 1, pp. 3-4, “Count 4”).
Count 7 – Mail interference claims against Warden Lashbrook and
other prison officials who caused a delay in personal mail that was
sent to Plaintiff at Pinckneyville on November 18 and 19, 2016.
(Doc. 1, p. 4, “Count 5”).
Count 8 – Fourteenth Amendment claim against Warden Lashbrook
and other prison officials for punishing Plaintiff with segregation “for
illegitimate reasons” after he wrote a letter to the law library staff at
Pinckneyville on or around January 26, 2016. (Doc. 1, pp. 4-5,
“Count 6”).

Count 9 – Fourteenth Amendment claim against prison officials for
depriving Plaintiff of a protected liberty interest without due process
of law by placing him in segregation for prolonged periods of time at
Pinckneyville (i.e., a total of 135 days in disciplinary segregation).
(Doc. 1, p. 5, “Count 7”).
Count 10 – Eighth Amendment claim against Major Lyerla for
making the decision to transfer Plaintiff to Menard on July 22, 2015,
to transfer him from the “hill” to the “pit” at Menard, and/or to
transfer him to Pinckneyville following the flood that occurred at
Menard on December 28, 2015. (Doc. 1, pp. 2-3, “Count 2”).
Count 11 – Claim against Warden Butler for conspiring with Major
Lyerla at Menard to violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and for
responding to the transfer decisions with gross negligence. (Doc. 1,
p. 2, “Count 2”).
Count 12 – Claim against Sergeant Scott for harassing and
threatening Plaintiff at Menard because of his visitor’s list. (Doc. 1,
p. 3, “Count 2”).
Count 13 – Fourteenth Amendment due process and negligence
claims against Major Lyerla and “others” for mishandling Plaintiff’s
grievances at Menard in order to prevent him from exhausting his
administrative remedies. (Doc. 1, p. 3, “Count 3”).
Count 14 – Claims of vicarious liability against Governor Bruce
Rauner and Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) Director
John Baldwin based on their supervisory roles within the prison
system. (Doc. 1, p. 1).
The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and
orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court.

The

designation of these counts does not constitute an opinion as to their merit. Any
claims that are mentioned in the Complaint or exhibits but omitted from the
above list are considered dismissed without prejudice from this action.

Discussion
Plaintiff’s claims can be divided into two distinct groups. The first group,

i.e., Counts 1-9, arose during Plaintiff’s incarceration at Pinckneyville beginning in
late 2015 (hereinafter “Pinckneyville claims”). The second group, i.e., Counts 1013, arose from events that occurred at Menard in 2015 (hereinafter “Menard
claims”). These two groups of claims do not belong in the same action. For the
reasons discussed herein, the Menard claims will be severed into a new case.
Before addressing the issue of severance, however, the Court must first
address Count 14, which implicates both sets of claims. This claim is clearly
frivolous. Plaintiff seeks to impose liability for all of the alleged constitutional
deprivations described in Counts 1-13 against Governor Rauner and IDOC
Director Baldwin based on a theory of respondeat superior liability. However, the
doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to § 1983 actions.

Gayton v.

McCoy, 593 F.3d 610, 622 (7th Cir. 2010); Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724,
740 (7th Cir. 2001); Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Eades v.

Thompson, 823 F.2d 1055, 1063 (7th Cir. 1987); Wolf-Lillie v. Sonquist, 699
F.2d 864, 869 (7th Cir. 1983); Duncan v. Duckworth, 644 F.2d 653, 655-56 (7th
Cir. 1981).

To be held individually liable, a defendant must be “personally

responsible for the deprivation of a constitutional right.” Sanville, 266 F.3d at
740 (quoting Chavez v. Ill. State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 651 (7th Cir. 2001)).
Plaintiff sets forth no allegations suggesting that either defendant was personally

responsible for the deprivation of his constitutional rights. Accordingly, Count 14
shall be dismissed with prejudice.
The Court deems it appropriate to sever the remaining claims into 2
separate cases pursuant to George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007). In

George, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals emphasized that unrelated claims
against different defendants belong in separate lawsuits, “not only to prevent the
sort of morass” produced by multi-claim, multi-defendant suits, “but also to
ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees” under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act. George, 507 F.3d at 607 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), (g)). Claims
against different defendants, which do not arise from a single transaction or
occurrence or a series of related transactions or occurrences and do not share a
common question of law or fact, may not be joined in the same lawsuit. See FED.
R. CIV. P. 20(a)(2). Prisoners who file “buckshot complaints” that include multiple
unrelated claims against different individuals should not be allowed to avoid
“risking multiple strikes for what should have been several different lawsuits.”

Turley v. Gaetz, 625 F.3d 1005, 1011 (7th Cir. 2010). The Court has broad
discretion when deciding whether to sever claims pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 21 or dismiss improperly joined defendants.

See Owens v.

Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011); Rice v. Sunrise Express, Inc., 209
F.3d 1008, 1016 (7th Cir. 2000).
Plaintiff’s claims fall into two groups: (1) the Pinckneyville claims (i.e.,
Counts 1-9) against Defendants Lashbrook, Swiney, Heck, McCarty, Lind,

McBride, Baker, Mailroom Clerk(s), and Food Service Supervisor(s); and (2) the
Menard claims (i.e., Counts 10-13) against Defendants Butler, Lyerla, and Scott.
The two sets of claims are unrelated to one another. Plaintiff asserts them against
different defendants.
Consistent with George and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, the Court
shall sever the Menard claims (i.e., Counts 10-13) against Defendants Butler,
Lyerla, and Scott into a new case. A new case number will be assigned to the
severed case, and a separate filing fee will be assessed. The severed case shall
undergo preliminary review pursuant to § 1915A.
The Pinckneyville claims (i.e., Counts 1-9) shall remain in this action.
Before conducting a preliminary review of those claims under § 1915A, the Court
will offer Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint in this case that
focuses only on claims arising at Pinckneyville. This is largely because Plaintiff
failed to name specific defendants in connection with several of his claims or
provide sufficient factual support for each claim. In addition, Plaintiff included
exhibits that appear to expand his Pinckneyville claims beyond the original scope
of his Complaint, by naming prison officials and claims that were not included in
the statement of his claim. Finally, the exhibits are not organized in a logical
sequence (e.g., using numbers or letters), calling into question the completeness
of the Complaint.
For each of these reasons, the Court deems it necessary to allow Plaintiff an
opportunity to file an amended complaint in this case that focuses on a single set

of related claims against the same group of Pinckneyville defendants.

The

instructions and deadline for amending the complaint are set forth in the below
disposition. Failure to file an amended complaint that complies with the belowlisted instructions and deadline shall result in the Court’s preliminary review of
the original Complaint after the deadline for amending expires.
Interim Relief
Plaintiff requests “injunctions” in his Complaint.

(Doc. 1, pp. 1, 5-6).

However, he does not state what specific injunctive relief he seeks. He does not
request a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) or a preliminary injunction. He
does not refer to Rule 65(a) or (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A TRO is an order issued without notice to the party to be enjoined that
may last no more than 14 days. See FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(2). A TRO is warranted
only if “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that
immediate or irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before
the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(1)(A). This
form of relief is warranted “to prevent a substantial risk of injury from ripening
into actual harm.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 845 (1994).
A preliminary injunction is issued only after the adverse party is given
notice and an opportunity to oppose the motion. See FED. R. CIV. P. 65(a)(1). “A
plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to
succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence
of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an

injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555
U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations omitted). See also Korte v. Sebelius, 735 F.3d 654,
665 (7th Cir. 2013); Woods v. Buss, 496 F.3d 620, 622 (7th Cir. 2007); Cooper v.

Salazar, 196 F.3d 809, 813 (7th Cir. 1999).
Neither form of relief is warranted at this time. When combing through the
allegations in the Complaint to determine what interim relief Plaintiff might be
seeking, the Court identified three possible requests that pertain to his current
confinement at Pinckneyville. First, Plaintiff seeks law library access. (Doc. 1,
pp. 11-13). Second, he seeks possible medical treatment for injuries he sustained
during the inmate attack in December 2016. (Doc. 1, p. 2).

Third, he seeks

protective placement. (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6).
With respect to the first request, Plaintiff seeks the Court’s assistance in
accessing the prison law library. (Doc. 1, pp. 11-13). However, Plaintiff fails to
indicate how often he is currently granted access, when he requested additional
access, to whom he directed the request, and the response he received to his
request. Id. Without this basic information, the Court is unable to assess his
need for relief under Rule 65(a) or (b).
With respect to the second request, Plaintiff alludes to untreated injuries
that he sustained during the inmate attack that occurred in December 2016.
(Doc. 1, p. 2).

He alleges that his jaw injury remained untreated as of mid-

January. Id. Once again, Plaintiff does not specifically seek treatment for it at
this time. Id. He does not indicate when he requested treatment, to whom he

directed the request, and the response he received. Id. Accordingly, the Court
finds no basis for granting interim relief under Rule 65(a) or (b) at this time.
As for his third request, Plaintiff refers to the need for protection from
another inmate assault. (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6). However, he goes on to state that he
was transferred to a new housing unit just before filing his Complaint. (Doc. 1, p.
6). Since his transfer, Plaintiff’s living arrangements have admittedly been “a lot
more peaceful.” Id. He also refers to no specific threat of harm at this time. No
TRO or preliminary injunction is warranted under the circumstances.
The Court concludes that no interim relief is warranted at this time under
Rule 65. Should Plaintiff’s situation change, he may file a motion seeking a TRO
or preliminary injunction in this case.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that COUNT 14 is DISMISSED with prejudice
against Defendants RAUNER and BALDWIN (i.e., State defendants) for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Defendants RAUNER and

BALDWIN are DISMISSED with prejudice from this action because they are
named in connection with no other claims.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that COUNTS 10-13 (i.e., Menard claims),
which are unrelated to COUNTS 1-9 (i.e., Pinckneyville claims), are severed into a
new case against Defendants BUTLER, LYERLA, and SCOTT, which shall be
captioned: MICHAEL OLIVER, Plaintiff vs. KIMBERLY BUTLER, MAJOR
LYERLA, and SERGEANT SCOTT, Defendants.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to file the following documents in the new case:
(1)

This Memorandum and Order;

(2)

The Original Complaint (Doc. 1);

(3)

Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3).

Plaintiff will be responsible for an additional $400.00 4 filing fee in the new
case. The claims in the newly severed case are subject to review under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A after the new case number and judge assignment are made. No service
shall be ordered on the defendants in the severed case until the § 1915A review is
completed.

That case is also subject to further severance, should the Court

determine, as the case proceeds, that Plaintiff has improperly joined parties
and/or claims in the newly severed case.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants BUTLER, LYERLA, and SCOTT are
TERMINATED from t his action with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the only claims remaining in this action

are COUNTS 1-9 (i.e., Pinckneyville claims) against Defendants LASHBROOK,
SWINEY, HECK, McCARTY, LIND, McBRIDE, BAKER, MAILROOM CLERK(s),
and FOOD SERVICE SUPERVISOR(s) (i.e., Pinckneyville defendants). This
case shall now be captioned: MICHAEL OLIVER, Plaintiff vs. JACQUELINE
LASHBROOK, RICHARD SWINEY, CHARLES HECK, LESLIE McCARTY,

4

Effective May 1, 2013, the filing fee for a civil case increased from $350.00 to $400.00, by the
addition of a new $50.00 administrative fee for filing a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district
court. See Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees - District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule, 28
U.S.C. § 1914, No. 14. A litigant who is granted IFP status, however, is exempt from paying the
new $50.00 fee.

BART LIND, CAROL McBRIDE, PHILLIP BAKER, MAILROOM CLERK(s), and
FOOD SERVICE SUPERVISOR(s).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that preliminary review of COUNTS 1-9
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A shall be suspended in this case until after March
28, 2017. On or before that date, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a First Amended
Complaint that includes all related claims against the Pinckneyville defendants.
Failure to file a First Amended Complaint that complies with this Order (including
the instructions and deadline set forth herein) will result in the screening,
dismissal, and/or further severance of Counts 1-9 after the deadline passes. No
service shall be ordered on the defendants in this case until the § 1915A review is
completed.
Should Plaintiff decide to file an amended complaint in this case, it is
strongly recommended that he use the forms designed for use in this District for
such actions. He must label the amended complaint, “First Amended Complaint,”
and refer to this case number (i.e., Case No. 17-00169-DRH).

The amended

complaint shall present each claim against the Pinckneyville defendants 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. He should

include only related claims in his amended complaint.

Claims found to be

unrelated 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.
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 and exhibits must be labeled in
order, using letters or numbers, so that the Court can determine whether pages
are missing. The First Amended Complaint is also 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 5
remains due and payable, regardless of whether Plaintiff elects to file an 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
5

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.

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.
Signed this 23rd day of February, 2017.

Digitally signed by
Judge David R.
Herndon
Date: 2017.02.23
17:17:41 -06'00'
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE