Croom v. Doe et al

Filing 1

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER severing case. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 6/14/2017. (jaj)

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

Case No. 17 cv–612 DRH

JACQUELINE LASHBROOK,
TRIPP,
RODELY,
JOHN DOE 1,
JOHN DOE 2,
JOHN DOE 3, and
JOHN DOE 4
Defendants.
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. Plaintiff seeks declarative relief, monetary damages,
and injunctive relief. 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

(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.
Upon careful review of the complaint and any supporting exhibits, the
Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; this action is
severable.
The Complaint
Plaintiff 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 urinestained, but plaintiff only received “some 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, 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.
The meat at Menard contains soy product. Id. As a result of eating the soy,
Plaintiff alleges that he has experienced severe stomach pain, gas, constipation,
and rectal bleeding. (Doc. 1, p. 9). Plaintiff had x-rays of his stomach taken after
2

he was “given 2 cups of milk of magnesium laxative.”

Id.

The x-ray showed

constipation and gas. Id. Plaintiff has requested a blood test for hypothyroidism
and thyroid hormones, as well as a soy-free diet, but Tripp refused to give him the
blood test. Id. P.A. Moldenhaur refuses to prescribe Plaintiff a medical diet. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that he experiences stomach pain and suffering every day and that
he has lost weight from attempting to avoid soy. Id.
On March 3, 2017 at approximately 12:35 am, plaintiff attempted to jump
into the top bunk in his cell and fell. (Doc. 1, p. 10). He landed on the back of
his head and split his elbow on the lower bunk on the way down. Id. The bunks
do not have ladders, and the top bunk is approximately 5 ft. off the ground. Id.
Plaintiff’s cellmate called for help, as there was no call button the cell.

Id.

Plaintiff waited 15 minutes before a guard came to the cell. Id. John Doe 2, the
shift sergeant came to the cell and then left to consult medical.

Id.

Doe 2

returned and told Plaintiff “medical said they are not coming because it is not an
emergency.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that the medical staff could not have known it
was not an emergency because they failed to assess the situation in person. Id.
Plaintiff received a pass to outpatient care at 8:00 am. (Doc. 1, p. 11). He alleges
he was barely able to walk as a result of the incident. Id. He tried to complain to
Tripp about the incident, but Tripp told him that she was only there to take his
blood pressure. Id. After complaining about his neck and back, Tripp looked at
the back of plaintiff’s neck and told him there was nothing she can do. Id. She
refused to put plaintiff on the list to see the doctor and told plaintiff to put in a
3

sick call slip. Id. Despite putting in 9 sick call slips, plaintiff was not seen until
over 3 weeks later. Id. Plaintiff was given an x-ray, which was “unremarkable.”
Id.

Plaintiff was never given a prescription for the pain, and had to take

ibuprofen. (Doc. 1, p. 12). He alleges that he still experiences pain and stiffness
in his neck and back. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that the guards refuse to pass out grievance forms. Id. The
law library staff also refuses to copy grievances. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that he submitted 13 grievances to counselor Rodely in
March and April 2017, and that Rodely only responded to 2 of them. (Doc. 1, pp.
12-13). She ignored the others. (Doc. 1, p. 13).
Plaintiff alleges that he has an enemy at Menard who is incarcerated for
murdering Plaintiff’s best friend. Id. Plaintiff himself is incarcerated for allegedly
murdering an associate of the enemy. Id. The enemy has threated plaintiff. Id.
Discussion
Based on the allegations of the complaint, the Court finds it convenient to
divide the pro se action into 11 counts. 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.
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;

4

Count 2 – Plaintiff’s health was endangered in violation of the Eighth
Amendment by the amount of soy in the prison’s diet;
Count 3 – Tripp was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s severe stomach
pain, gas, constipation, and rectal bleeding when she refused to order a
blood test in order to evaluate plaintiff’s thyroid function;
Count 4 – Tripp was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s injuries after he
fell off his bunk on March 3, 2017 when she refused to examine him the
next day, ignored his call passes, and refused to prescribe him medication
for his pain and stiffness;
Count 5 – John Doe 3 was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious
medical need when he refused to examine plaintiff after he fell of his bunk
to determine if he was injured;
Count 6 – John Doe 2 was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious
medical need when he informed plaintiff that John Doe 3 would not
respond after he fell off his bunk on March 3, 2017;
Count 7 – Menard’s policy of not having call buttons in all cells is
unconstitutional;
Count 8 – Plaintiff was deprived of his First Amendment rights when
guards refused to give him grievance forms;
Count 9 – John Doe 4 deprived plaintiff of his First Amendment rights
when he or she refused to photocopy plaintiff’s grievances prior to him
submitting them to the grievance counselor;
Count 10 – Rodely deprived plaintiff of his First Amendment rights by
refusing to respond to his grievances;
Count 11 – Plaintiff was not given adequate protection in violation of the
Eighth Amendment when an enemy of his came to Menard and prison
officials refused to transfer him out of Menard.
Before the Court addresses the severance issue, it notes that some
defendants have not been associated with any claims.

5

The body of plaintiff’s

complaint does not mention John Doe1, otherwise identified as the segregation
major, or Jacqueline Lashbrook, the Warden of Menard. The Court is unable to
ascertain what claims, if any, plaintiff has against these defendants. 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 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).

For that reason, John Doe 1 and Lashbrook are dismissed

without prejudice.
Here, plaintiff has brought several discrete groups of claims.

Although

some counts address the conditions plaintiff experienced in segregation, others
address specific events that occurred there. And some of plaintiff’s claims are
completely unrelated to any issue with the segregation placement.

For these

reasons, the Court finds that it is appropriate to sever claims into new cases
pursuant to George v. Smith.
In George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007), the Seventh Circuit
emphasized that unrelated claims against different defendants belong in separate
lawsuits, “not only to prevent the sort of morass” produced by multi-claim, multi6

defendant suits, “but also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees”
under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
U.S.C. § 1915(b)(g)).
from

a

single

George, 507 F.3d at 607 (citing 28

Claims against different defendants, which do not arise

transaction

or

occurrence

(or

a

series

of

related

transactions/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). Further, a
prisoner who files a “buckshot complaint” that includes 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 as to

whether to sever claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, or to
dismiss improperly joined defendants. See Owens v. Hinsely, 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 roughly into 4 groups:

1) claim regarding the

conditions of confinement in segregation at Menard; 2) claims regarding his
health issues and the surrounding circumstances; 3) claims regarding the
grievance procedure at Menard; and 4) claim that he was not protected when an
enemy of his came to Menard. There are different defendants across the 4 claim
groupings, and none of the groups share a common nucleus of facts or events.
For these reasons, the Court shall sever plaintiff’s claims into 3 other cases and
assess a new filing fee in all of the other cases.
7

Consistent with the George decision and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
21, the Court shall sever the claims in Counts 2-7 into a separate action against
Tripp, John Doe 2, and John Doe 3. It will sever the claims in Counts 8-10 into a
separate action against Rodely and John Doe 4. Count 11 shall be severed into
its own case.

The 3 severed cases shall have newly-assigned case numbers.

Plaintiff shall be assessed 3 more filing fees for the newly severed cases. The
severed cases shall undergo preliminary review pursuant to 1915A after new case
numbers and judge assignments have been made.
Count 1 shall remain in this action. A separate order shall be issued in this
case to review the merits of that claim. Plaintiff shall be provided with a copy of
the merits review order as soon as it is entered. No service shall be ordered on
any Defendant at this time, pending the § 1915A review.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Lashbrook and John Doe 1 are
DISMISSED from this action without prejudice.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Counts 2-11, which are unrelated to Count
1, are severed into 3 separate cases. The first case shall contain Counts 2-7 and
shall be against Tripp, John Doe 2 and John Doe 3.

The second case shall

contain Counts 8-10 against John Doe 4 and Rodely. The third case shall contain
Count 11. Defendants Tripp, Rodely, and John Does 2-4 shall be DISMISSED
from this case without prejudice.

8

The claims in the newly severed cases shall be subject to merits review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A after the new case number and judge assignment
is made.

In the new cases, the Clerk is DIRECTED to file the following

documents:
1) This Memorandum and Order
2) The Complaint (Doc. 1)
Plaintiff will be responsible for an additional $400.00 filing fee in all 3
of the newly severed cases. No service shall be ordered on the defendant in the
severed case until the § 1915A review is completed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the only claims remaining in this
action is Count 1.

Judge Herndon
2017.06.14
10:48:00 -05'00'

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 14, 2017

United States District Judge

9