Jones et al v. Mooney et al

Filing 22

ORDER : The Second Amended Complaint, if Plaintiff chooses to file one, SHALL BE FILED within 21 days of the entry of this order (on or before October 11, 2017). If Plaintiff does not file a Second Amended Complaint in accordance with the set forth in this Order, the Court shall proceed to review the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 16), without the proposed supplementary material. (Amended Pleadings due by 10/11/2017). Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 9/19/2017. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CORBIN D. JONES, # 01-30-1989-46,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JENNIFER ROBERTS,
LT. HAYNES,
LT. BONNIE MAY,
C/O SPARTEGUES,
CAPT. MOUNT,
C/O JEFF CLARK,
NURSE SHIRLEY,
DR. PAULIUS,
C/O FORTAG,
C/O EDWARDS,
DEPUTY TRAVIS SCOTT,
C/O CONWAY,
and C/O McKINNIS,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 17-cv-349-JPG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT, District Judge:
This matter is now before the Court for review of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
(Doc. 16). This amended pleading was timely filed on June 20, 2017, at the direction of the
Court, after the original Complaint was dismissed for noncompliance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8. (Doc. 14). In the dismissal order, Plaintiff was instructed to “present each claim in
a separate count,” using the numbered counts (Counts 5-11) as designated by the Court in Doc.
14, and to specify each Defendant by name who was alleged to be liable under the count. (Doc.
14, p. 11).
In the June 12, 2017, order that directed Plaintiff to file the First Amended Complaint

1

(Doc. 14), the Court described Plaintiff’s claims as follows:
Count 5: Excessive force claim against the unidentified officers who arrested
Jones on February 13 or 14, 2017, for applying handcuffs to Jones’ wrists so
tightly that his hands were swollen for several days;
Count 6: Deliberate indifference claim against unidentified jail staff for the
failure to provide Jones with medical testing for communicable diseases following
his exposure to a cellmate’s blood after the cellmate’s suicide attempt;
Count 7: Deliberate indifference claim against unidentified jail staff for the
failure to provide Jones with cleaning supplies or to clean the areas in and near his
cell that were contaminated with blood;
Count 8: Deliberate indifference claim against Scott, Mount, Haynes, and Nurse
Shirley for failing to provide Jones with medical treatment for burns and cuts on
his arms sustained before his arrest;
Count 9: First Amendment claim for the improper opening and destruction/loss
of Jones’ legal mail, against Edwards, Spartegues, Jeff, and Roberts;
Count 10: Deliberate indifference claim against Haynes and Roberts for the
failure to permit Jones to leave the cell for recreation;
Count 11: Deliberate indifference claim against unidentified jail staff for placing
Jones in a cell with insufficient heat, bedding, or clothing; exposing him to black
mold, rusty drinking water, and insects; and serving him spoiled milk and soggy
food.
The First Amended Complaint (Doc. 16) consisting of 20 pages, is much more concise
than the original 70-page Complaint, but is somewhat disjointed and repetitive, and includes no
reference to Counts 5-11. It also appears to include some extraneous material unrelated to this
action, and includes references to dental problems and denial of access to religious services that
were not included at all in the original pleading.
Complicating the review of the First Amended Complaint is the fact that on July 19,
2017, Plaintiff submitted what appears to be a proposed supplement to his First Amended
Complaint. Plaintiff did not include any motion or explanation with this submission, but the
Clerk docketed a motion to supplement the amended complaint (Doc. 18) when the material was
2

received. The documents have not been filed of record pending the Court’s review. The
proposed supplement consists of a Civil Cover Sheet, and 4 pages in which Plaintiff sets forth
Counts 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, with the addition of several Defendants’ names and some additional
facts for each of these counts. It also includes a certificate of service.
The additional information in the proposed supplement would appear to help clarify and
organize the First Amended Complaint, if the two documents were combined. However, a
litigant is not permitted to submit pleadings in a piecemeal fashion (often referred to as
amendment by interlineation) as Plaintiff has attempted to do here. Consistent with Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 8(a), amendment by interlineation is not permitted; all claims against all
defendants must be set forth in a single document. Furthermore, the proposed supplement does
not contain a case caption listing the parties and case number, nor did Plaintiff sign the document
(he merely signed the certificate of service included after his list of Counts 6-11). It does not
include most of the factual allegations that are set forth in the First Amended Complaint. Thus,
the proposed supplement is insufficient to stand alone as an amended complaint. If the proposed
supplement were to be filed, it would supersede and replace the Fist Amended Complaint, and
because of its deficiencies, it would be subject to dismissal. See Flannery v. Recording Indus.
Ass’n of Am., 354 F.3d 632, 638 n.1 (7th Cir. 2004) (amended complaint replaces the previous
complaint, rendering the earlier pleading void). It does not appear that Plaintiff would desire this
result. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s proposed supplement to the First Amended Complaint shall
not be filed of record. The motion to supplement amended complaint (Doc. 18) is DENIED.
In consideration of Plaintiff’s attempt to supplement his amended complaint, he shall be
allowed one final opportunity to submit a complete amended complaint. As he prepares his next
amended pleading, he may combine his proposed supplement with the factual allegations he

3

presented in the First Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff is reminded, again, that unrelated claims against different Defendants shall be
severed into separate cases, and a new filing fee shall be imposed, if the Court determines that
the claims were improperly joined in the same action. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607
(7th Cir. 2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), (g)).
Other Pending Motions
The Court reserves ruling on the motion for service of process at government expense
(Doc. 4) until such time as Plaintiff submits another amended complaint, if he chooses to do so.
Remaining on the docket is a motion for recruitment of counsel (Doc. 9) brought by
former co-Plaintiff Lekedrieon Russell. Russell has been terminated from this action and his
claims were severed into a separate case. The Clerk is thus DIRECTED to TERMINATE this
motion (Doc. 9) on the docket.
Disposition
IT IS ORDERED that, if Plaintiff wishes to include his proposed supplemental material
into his operative complaint, Plaintiff shall do so by preparing a Second Amended Complaint
that includes all factual allegations and statements of his claims in a single document. The
proposed amended pleading must include a case caption, must be signed by Plaintiff, and must
comply with Rule 8’s requirement to present “a short and plain statement of the claim” with
allegations that are “simple, concise, and direct.”
The Second Amended Complaint, if Plaintiff chooses to file one, SHALL BE FILED
within 21 days of the entry of this order (on or before October 11, 2017). It is strongly
recommended that Plaintiff use the form designed for use in this District for civil rights actions.
He should label the pleading “Second Amended Complaint” and include Case Number 17-cv-

4

349-JPG. The amended complaint shall present each claim in a separate count, using the
numbers as designated by the Court above. In each count, Plaintiff shall specify, by name,1 each
Defendant alleged to be liable under the count, as well as the actions alleged to have been taken
by that Defendant. New individual Defendants may be added if they were personally involved in
the constitutional violations.

Plaintiff should attempt to include the facts of his case in

chronological order, inserting Defendants’ names where necessary to identify the actors and the
dates of any material acts or omissions. As noted above, if Plaintiff does not wish to pursue any
of the claims designated as Counts 5-11, he may omit the claim(s) from the amended complaint.
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 pleading. Thus, the
Second Amended Complaint must contain all the relevant allegations in support of Plaintiff’s
claims and must stand on its own, without reference to any other document. Should the Second
Amended Complaint not conform to these requirements, it shall be stricken. Plaintiff must also
re-file any exhibits he wishes the Court to consider along with the Second Amended Complaint.
If Plaintiff does not file a Second Amended Complaint in accordance with the
instructions set forth in this Order, the Court shall proceed to review the First Amended
Complaint (Doc. 16), without the proposed supplementary material. Plaintiff is warned that he
may incur a “strike” within the meaning of § 1915(g) if his complaint is frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. No service shall be ordered on any
Defendant until after the Court completes its § 1915A review of the operative Complaint.
In order to assist Plaintiff in preparing his amended complaint, the Clerk is DIRECTED

1

Plaintiff may designate an unknown Defendant as John or Jane Doe, but should include descriptive
information (such as job title, shift worked, or location) to assist in the person’s eventual identification.

5

to mail Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint form.
Finally, Plaintiff is REMINDED 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 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.
DATED: September 19, 2017

s/J. Phil Gilbert
United States District Judge

6