Pyles v. Unknown Party

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file a First Amended Complaint on or before August 23, 2017. (Amended Pleadings due by 8/23/2017.) 5 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Terry L ee Pyles is Denied without prejudice, 7 MOTION for Recruitment of Counsel filed by Terry Lee Pyles is denied without prejudice, 6 MOTION to File a Habeas Corpus Petition filed by Terry Lee Pyles is denied, 9 MOTION for status filed by Terry Lee Pyles is denied as moot. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 7/25/2017. (jaj)

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

TERRY LEE PYLES,
#34864
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNKNOWN PARTY,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 17-cv–378-JPG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT, District Judge:
Plaintiff Terry Lee Pyles, a pretrial detainee at the Madison County Jail, brings this pro
se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s claims arise out of his arrest and
pending prosecution in Madison County, Illinois for meth manufacturing and possession of meth
manufacturing material. State of Illinois vs. Pyles, Case No. 2017-cv-690 (trial set for September
11, 2017).
This case is now before the Court for case management. As is set forth more fully below,
Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) fails to comply with Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and is therefore subject to dismissal without prejudice. See Myles v. United States,
416 F.3d 551 (7th Cir. 2005). Additionally, Plaintiff’s pending motions (Docs 5-7, 9) shall be
denied.

1

Dismissal for Failure to Comply with Rule 10(a)
The Complaint is actually in the form of a letter to the Court (addressed “to whom it may
concern”) and purports to raise claims pursuant to § 1983. (Doc. 1, p. 1). The Complaint
describes Plaintiff’s arrest on March 7, 2017 and indicates that Plaintiff was the victim of
excessive force by one or more arresting officers. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-10). The Complaint also
alludes to other alleged violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights in connection with his arrest
and pending trial. Some of the allegations are directed against unknown officials/officers at the
Madison County Sherriff’s Office (Doc. 1, pp. 1-3, 6-10) and other allegations appear to be
directed against Plaintiff’s attorneys in his pending criminal case (Doc. 1, pp. 4-5).
Although the Clerk of the Court designated “Unknown Party, Arresting Officers of
Madison County Sheriff’s Department” as the Defendant in CM/ECF, these individuals are not
actually identified as defendants in the caption of the Complaint. In fact, the Complaint does not
include a case caption or a list of defendants.
Pursuant to Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “[e]very pleading must
have a caption with the court's name, a title, a file number, and a Rule 7(a) designation. The title
of the complaint must name all parties...” (emphasis added). Though seemingly pedestrian,
compliance with this aspect of Rule 10(a) is mandatory.1 As the Seventh Circuit explained in

1

Further, strict adherence to procedural requirements is appropriate even where, as in the instant case, a plaintiff is
proceeding without the assistance of counsel:
While we have insisted that the pleadings prepared by prisoners who do not have access to counsel
be liberally construed, and have held that some procedural rules must give way because of the
unique circumstance of incarceration, we have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary
civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed without
counsel. As we have noted before, “in the long run, experience teaches that strict adherence to the
procedural requirements specified by the legislature is the best guarantee of evenhanded
administration of the law.”
McNeil v. United States, 113 S.Ct. 1980, 1984 (1993) (citations omitted).

2

Myles v. United States, 416 F.3d 551 (7th Cir. 2005), in order to make someone a party, the
plaintiff must name the individual in the case caption and arrange for service of process. Myles,
416 F.3d at 551. See also Id. (“Naming and serving defendants is vital. How can one defend
without first becoming a party?”). A pro se civil rights complaint that includes allegations
against individual officials not specifically identified as defendants in the caption of the
complaint does not comply with Rule 10(a) and is subject to dismissal. Id at 551-53. In this
scenario, it is “unacceptable for a court to add litigants on its own motion. Selecting defendants
is a task for the plaintiff, not the judge.” Id. at 552-53.
Here, without a case caption, none of the individuals mentioned in the body of the
Complaint can properly be considered a party under Rule 10(a).2 The Court cannot cure this
deficiency on its own motion by selecting individuals from the body of the Complaint and
adding them as defendants to the instant action. Accordingly, as written, the Complaint does not
specify a defendant and is subject to dismissal.

However, the dismissal shall be without

prejudice and with leave to amend. See Donald v. Cook Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 95 F.3d 548, 555
(7th Cir. 1996) (“When the substance of a pro se civil rights complaint indicates the existence of
claims against individual officials not specifically named in the caption of the complaint, the
district court must provide the petitioner with an opportunity to amend the complaint.”)
Motion/Notice to File for a Habeas Corpus Petition
Plaintiff has filed a pleading entitled “Notice to file for a Habeas Corpus Petition.”
(“Notice”) (Doc. 6). In the Notice, Plaintiff asks to be “granted a habeas corpus.” (Doc. 6, p. 1).
Plaintiff contends that he has been the victim of excessive force and raises several arguments in

2

In other pleadings, Plaintiff suggests that he intends to bring claims against one or more unknown arresting
officers. This, however, is insufficient. The Court does not accept piecemeal pleadings and the Complaint must
stand on its own. Moreover, as set forth in Myles, in order to be considered a party, the individual must be named in
the caption of the Complaint.

3

support of his request for release from jail, including alleged due process violations, lack of
probable cause for arrest, and false charges. Plaintiff has also filed a Supplement in support of
his Notice (Doc. 10) raising similar arguments.
Plaintiff’s Notice, which challenges the fact of his confinement and seeks release from
jail, must be denied. A request for release from jail cannot be combined with a § 1983 action for
monetary damages. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). If Plaintiff wishes to
challenge his confinement, he must file a separate habeas corpus action in either state or federal
court.
Because Plaintiff is challenging his pretrial custody, any federal habeas corpus action
would arise under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Jacobs v. McCoaughtry, 251 F.3d 596, 597 (7th Cir. 2001);
Walker v. O'Brien,216 F.3d 626, 633 (7th Cir. 2000). Section 2241 allows a pretrial detainee to
bring a habeas corpus petition, but this ability is limited by Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37
(1971). Pursuant to Younger, unless “exceptional circumstances” exist, federal courts must
abstain from interfering with pending state proceedings to enforce a state’s criminal laws.
Stroman Realty, Inc., v. Martinez, 505 F.3d 658, 662 (7th Cir. 2007); see also Younger, 401 U.S.
at 43, 49. Exceptional circumstances have been found where irreparable damage would occur,
such as prosecutorial harassment and bad faith, or speedy trial and double jeopardy claims—and
then only after the petitioner has exhausted available state court remedies. Younger, 401 U.S. at
43, 49; Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 489-92 (1973) (collecting
cases).
Plaintiff should keep these principles in mind in deciding whether to initiate a federal
habeas corpus action.

4

Motion for Status
In light of the issuance of the instant Order, Plaintiff’s Motion for Status (Doc. 9) shall be
DENIED as MOOT.

Additionally, the Court notes the Motion for Status and several of

Plaintiff’s pleadings contain questions seeking advice from the Court. The Court appreciates
Plaintiff’s desire to understand the judicial process and to proceed in a manner allowed by the
rules and the law.

However, the Court is prohibited from giving litigants legal advice.

Accordingly, Plaintiff must look elsewhere for answers to his legal inquiries.
Motions for Counsel
Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 5) and a Motion for
Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 7). The initial motion merely indicates that Plaintiff is indigent,
lacks education, and requires assistance. (Doc. 5). In the more recently filed motion, Plaintiff
indicates that he has called “several” attorneys, but no one will take his calls. (Doc. 7, p. 1).
Additionally, Plaintiff states that he is “not educated enough to conduct [himself] professionally
in a court of law.” (Doc. 7, p. 2). Plaintiff also states that he takes Ultram for pain and Ativan
for anxiety. Id.
A district court “may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford
counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). There is no constitutional or statutory right to counsel for a
civil litigant, however.

Stroe v. Immigration and Naturalization Services, 256 F.3d 498, 500

(7th Cir. 2001); Zarnes v. Rhodes, 64 F.3d 285, 288 (7th Cir. 1995). Recruitment of counsel lies
within the sound discretion of the trial court. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir.
2007) (citing Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir. 2006)).
In determining whether to recruit counsel, the Court is directed to make a two-fold
inquiry: “(1) has the indigent plaintiff made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel or been
effectively precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty of the case, does the
5

plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself?” Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 654 (citing Farmer v. Haas,
990 F.2d 319, 321-22 (7th Cir. 1993)). The first prong of the analysis is a threshold question. If
a plaintiff has made no attempt to obtain counsel on his own, the court should deny the request.
See Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655.
Plaintiff satisfies neither requirement. The motions contain insufficient information for
the Court to determine if Plaintiff has made reasonable attempts to secure counsel on his own
before seeking the Court’s assistance in doing so. Further, despite his alleged lack of legal
knowledge, Plaintiff evinces an ability to competently litigate this straightforward matter without
the assistance of counsel. At this juncture, the Court is merely concerned with whether this
action can get out of the gate, so to speak. All that is required is for Plaintiff to provide an
amended complaint that names appropriate defendants in the caption and includes sufficient
factual content regarding the constitutional violations allegedly committed by each defendant.
Plaintiff alone has knowledge of these facts, and no legal training or knowledge is required to set
them down on paper.
Therefore, the Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 5) and the Motion for
Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 7) are DENIED without prejudice. The Court will remain open to
appointing counsel as the case progresses.
Proceeding Against Unknown Defendants
In Plaintiff’s initial Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 5), Plaintiff indicates that he does
not know the names of the officers who allegedly violated his constitutional rights when he was
arrested. Plaintiff does not have to know the names of the individual defendants in order to file
an amended pleading. Instead, Plaintiff may use John Doe or Jane Doe in place of the officer's
actual name (for example, John Doe 1, the arresting officer that did x; John Doe 2, the arresting
officer that did y). As with all Defendants, the John Doe Defendants must be identified in the
6

caption of the amended complaint. In addition, the body of the amended complaint must
describe how each John Doe Defendant allegedly violated Plaintiff’s rights. If Plaintiff files an
amended complaint and the Court allows him to proceed on a claim against a Doe defendant,
Plaintiff can use discovery to identify the Doe defendant's real name.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc.
5) and Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. 7) are DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion/Notice to File for a Habeas
Corpus Petition (Doc. 6) is DENIED.

If Plaintiff wishes to challenge the fact of his

confinement and is seeking release, he must file a separate habeas corpus action in state or
federal court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Status (Doc. 9) is DENIED as
MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file a “First Amended Complaint” on or before August 23,
2017. Should Plaintiff fail to file his First Amended Complaint within the allotted time or
consistent with the instructions set forth in this Order, the entire case shall be dismissed with
prejudice for failure to comply with a court order and/or for failure to prosecute his claims. FED.
R. APP. P. 41(b). See generally Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Johnson v.
Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Should Plaintiff decide to file a First Amended Complaint, it is strongly recommended
that he use the forms designed for use in this District for such actions. He should label the form,
“First Amended Complaint,” and he should use the case number for this action (i.e. 17-cv-378JPG).
7

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 is subject to review pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
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 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).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/J. Phil Gilbert
United States District Judge

8