Croom v. Lashbrook et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim. (Doc.1). Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is also DENIED. (Doc. 5). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, should he wish to proceed with this case, Plaintiff shall file his first amended complaint, stating any facts which may exist to support the personal involvement of any defendant in his conditions of confinement claims and any related claims, within 30 days of the entry of th is Order. Failure to file an amended complaint shall result in the dismissal of this action with prejudice. Such dismissal shall count as one of Plaintiffs three allotted strikes within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). No service shall be ord ered on any Defendant until after the Court completes its § 1915A review of the First Amended Complaint. In order to assist Plaintiff in preparing his amended complaint, the Clerk is DIRECTED to mail Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint form. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 7/7/2017. (tkm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHRISTOPHER CROOM,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 17 cv–612 DRH

UNKNOWN PARTY
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
Plaintiff Christopher Croom brings this action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that allegedly occurred in
Menard Correctional Center.
damages.

Plaintiff seeks declarative relief and monetary

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).
1

Frivolousness is an

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).
After Plaintiff filed this case, the Court determined that Plaintiff had
attempted to proceed on unrelated claims in the same lawsuit. (Doc. 4). The
Court dismissed some defendants and severed some claims into separate
lawsuits. (Doc. 4). Plaintiff has now filed a motion for reconsideration, which the
Court will take up with this review because it addresses the propriety of
dismissing those defendants. (Doc. 5). Upon careful review of the Complaint and
any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority
under § 1915A; this action will be dismissed without prejudice with leave to file
an amended complaint.

The Court also DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration. (Doc. 5).
The Complaint
As pertinent to this claim, Plaintiff alleges that he was sent to segregation at
Menard Correctional Center on February 13, 2017. (Doc. 1, p. 8). Plaintiff’s cell
was filthy and his mattress was urine-stained, but Plaintiff only received “some

2

type of watered-down liquid” once a week to clean it. Id. Plaintiff received the
same amount cleaning supplies in segregation as he did in general population. Id.
Plaintiff was also deprived of personal hygiene items, like toothpaste, a
toothbrush, soap, deodorant, and a change of clothes for 10 days, until he
received his personal property. Id. Plaintiff asked a C/O for hygiene products,
but the C/O responded “ask your homeboys” and “don’t come to seg.”

Id.

Plaintiff was not permitted to shower for 18 days. Id.
Plaintiff was assigned to a two-man cell with 36 square feet of space. Id.
There is no room to exercise in those cells. Id.
Discussion
The order dividing Plaintiff’s claims into separate cases designated 1 claim
for this case:
Count 1 – Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and
unusual punishment was violated when he was confined to a 36 square foot
cell, on a filthy pee-soaked mattress and deprived of cleaning supplies,
hygiene products, and an opportunity to shower for 18 days;
Plaintiff’s Complaint does not mention, describe, or otherwise identify any
defendants in connection with the conditions of confinement claim in Count 1.
(Doc. 1, p. 8). Plaintiffs are required to associate specific defendants with specific
claims, so that defendants are put on notice of the claims brought against them
and so they can properly answer the complaint.

See Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). Where a plaintiff has
not included a defendant in his statement of the claim, the defendant cannot be

3

said to be adequately put on notice of which claims in the complaint, if any, are
directed against him.

Furthermore, merely invoking the name of a potential

defendant is not sufficient to state a claim against that individual. See Collins v.

Kibort, 143 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1998).
Normally, that would be the end of the analysis and the Court would
dismiss Count 1 with leave to amend for failure to associate specific defendants
with specific allegations. However, Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration.
(Doc. 5).

That motion addresses the Court’s prior dismissal of Jacqueline

Lashbrook, the Warden of Menard and John Doe (Segregation Major), and argues
that they were properly named as defendants. (Doc. 5).
Specifically, Plaintiff argues that Lashbrook is a proper defendant because
she has a policy of housing inmates in 36 sq. foot cells and because she
“negligently manag[es] her subordinates.” (Doc. 5, pp. 2-3). Likewise, the motion
alleges that John Doe negligently managed his subordinates. (Doc. 5, p. 3). The
motion further alleges that both defendants have made rounds in segregation,
received complaints about segregation, and have observed the conditions with
their own eyes. Id. Plaintiff further states that it would be a “headache” to add
every officer that he complained to when there is a chain of command and he can
just name the ranking officials responsible for managing the subordinates. Id.
Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider repeatedly states that Lashbrook and Doe
are supervisors.

But there is no supervisory liability, also called respondeat

superior, in a § 1983 action; thus to be held individually liable, a defendant must

4

be “‘personally responsible for the deprivation of a constitutional right.’” Sanville

v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001) (quoting Chavez v. Ill. State
Police, 251 F.3d 612, 651 (7th Cir. 2001)). See also 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).

Plaintiff’s position that

Lashbrook and Doe are properly named due to their supervisory role is therefore
unavailing.
The motion to reconsider does however hit on 2 positions that may be valid
grounds for liability, if Plaintiff files an amended complaint raising them. Plaintiff
alleges that Lashbrook and Doe were aware of the conditions through observation
and complaints.

If Plaintiff alleges plausible facts that show he personally

complained about the conditions he experienced to Lashbrook and/or Doe and
they subsequently refused to take any action, that may establish the necessary
personal involvement to state a claim.

Conclusory allegations that Doe and

Lashbrook heard complaints from inmates generally will not suffice; Plaintiff
must allege that they had knowledge of the conditions he endured.

Plaintiff

should note that complaining to subordinates does not establish the personal
involvement of the supervisors without more. 1

1

Plaintiff also may wish to consider whether he has claims against anyone lower in the
chain of command, like the C/O who allegedly told him to ask his friends for hygiene supplies or
avoid coming to segregation.

5

Secondly, Plaintiff also states in his motion to reconsider that Lashbrook
had a policy of keeping inmates in cells that were unconstitutionally small. A
policy or custom may be the basis of liability pursuant to Monell v. Dep’t of Soc.

Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). If Plaintiff can allege facts tending to show that he
was harmed by an unconstitutional policy, that claim would survive threshold
review.
However, the fact that Plaintiff presented these theories for the first time in
a motion to reconsider is problematic. Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege that
Lashbrook and/or Doe were made aware of the conditions at issue. Nor does it
allege that Lashbrook acted pursuant to an unconstitutional policy or custom. As
these allegations are not present in the Complaint, the Court will not consider
them at this time. A motion to reconsider is not the proper vehicle to introduce
new allegations. See In re Prince, 85 F.3d 314, 324 (7th Cir. 1996) (finding that
while motions to reconsider are appropriate where there is a manifest error of law
or fact, they are not the appropriate vehicle to raise new information). Plaintiff
may be able to submit a complaint that contains an allegation that Lashbrook
and/or Doe was personally involved in the unconstitutional conditions of
confinement that were specifically applied to him and caused him harm. He may
also be able to allege that he was harmed by an unconstitutional policy or custom.
But in order to proceed, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint containing
those types of factual allegations.

6

As a final note, Plaintiff requested injunctive relief in his Complaint
requesting 1) a no-soy diet, 2) a transfer out of Menard for security reasons; 3) to
have ladders installed or a low-bunk permit. (Doc. 1, p. 15). The Court did not
construe any of these requests as related to the claims in this case. If Plaintiff
intended to request injunctive relief as to his conditions of confinement claims, he
should make that clear in any amended complaint he files and/or file a separate
motion on that point.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED without
prejudice for failure to state a claim.

(Doc.1). Plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration is also DENIED. (Doc. 5).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, should he wish to proceed with this case,
Plaintiff shall file his first amended complaint, stating any facts which may exist to
support the personal involvement of any defendant in his conditions of
confinement claims and any related claims, within 30 days of the entry of this
Order. 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 other pleading.

Should the first

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 first amended complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint shall result in
7

the dismissal of this action with prejudice. Such dismissal shall count as one of
Plaintiff’s three allotted “strikes” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Plaintiff is warned, however, that the Court takes the issue of perjury seriously,
and that any facts found to be untrue in the amended complaint may be grounds
for sanctions, including dismissal and possible criminal prosecution for perjury.

Rivera v. Drake, 767 F.3d 685, 686 (7th Cir. 2014) (dismissing a lawsuit as a
sanction where an inmate submitted a false affidavit and subsequently lied on the
stand).
No service shall be ordered on any Defendant until after the Court
completes its § 1915A review of the First Amended Complaint.
In order to assist Plaintiff in preparing his amended complaint, the Clerk is
DIRECTED to mail Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint form.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Digitally signed by
Judge David R. Herndon
Date: 2017.07.07
12:13:24 -05'00'

DATED: July 7, 2017

United States District Judge

8