Cross et al v. McLaurin et al
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action shall proceed only as to Lead Plaintiff DANIEL PIPPINS. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Pippins is GRANTED leave to file a First Amended Complaint in this case on or before [December 6, 2017. Should Plai ntiff fail to file his First Amended Complaint within the allotted time, this action may be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order or for failure to prosecute his claims. (Amended Pleadings due by 12/6/2017). Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 11/7/2017. (tjk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
COURTNEY MCNEAL, and
Case No. 17-cv-699-JPG
ST. CLAIR COUNTY JAIL,
ST. CLAIR COUNTY MEDICAL STAFF,
MARY ROBINSON-DAVIS, and
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court for case management and for identification of the
plaintiffs who will proceed with group litigation in this case. On July 5, 2017, five inmates at St.
Clair County Jail (“Jail”) filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in this District.
(Doc. 1). They challenged various conditions of their confinement at the Jail. The Complaint was
signed by all five plaintiffs, including Cedric Cross, Larry Williams, Daniel Pippins, Courtney
McNeal, and Christopher Furr. (Doc.1, p. 6).
On July 25, 2017, this Court entered an Order pursuant to Boriboune v. Berge, 391 F.3d
852 (7th Cir. 2004). (Doc. 7). In the Boriboune Order, the Court designated Plaintiff Pippins as
the “lead plaintiff” in this action. Id.1 The Court also dismissed Plaintiff Furr from the case, in
The Boribourne Order noted that only Pippins had filed an IFP Motion and trust fund account statement. As such,
Pippins was designated the lead Plaintiff. The Court subsequently received an IFP Motion from Courtney McNeal.
(Doc. 5). Although McNeal’s IFP Motion has a filing date of July 21, 2017 (the date it was signed), the pleading was
accord with his Motion to Withdraw from the case. Id.
The Court warned all of the remaining plaintiffs about the risks, obligations, and costs
associated with group litigation. Id. With the exception of Lead Plaintiff Pippins, each plaintiff
was then given an opportunity to withdraw from the case or sever his claims into individual
actions. Id. Any plaintiff who opted to proceed in a separate action was advised that his claims
would be severed into a new case and subject to a filing fee in the new action, instead of the
instant case. Id. The deadline for responding to the Boriboune Order was August 24, 2017. Id.
Plaintiffs were informed that the only way to avoid the obligation to pay a filing fee for this
action was to request dismissal from this action in writing by the deadline. Id. Plaintiffs were
explicitly warned that “[a]ny Plaintiff who simply does not respond to this Order on or
before August 24, 2017, will be obligated to pay the full filing fee and will also be dismissed
from this action for want of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with a court order
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).” (Doc. 7, p. 7) (emphasis in original).
On August 22, 2017, Plaintiff Cross filed an IFP Motion. (Doc. 11). The IFP Motion did
not mention the Court’s Boriboune Order in any way. Plaintiff Cross has not otherwise
responded to the Boribourne Order by confirming his desire to proceed with group litigation or
to proceed in a separate action. Plaintiffs McNeal and Williams also failed to respond to the
Court’s Boribourne Order.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action shall proceed only as to Lead Plaintiff
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs CEDRIC CROSS, LARRY WILLIAMS,
not actually docketed by the Court until July 24, 2017. Regardless, this does not alter the fact that Pippins was
designated the lead Plaintiff. Further, the Court still would have designated Pippins (the first to file an IFP Motion)
as the lead Plaintiff.
and COURTNEY MCNEAL are DISMISSED as plaintiffs in this action based on their failure
to timely respond to the Boriboune Order and for failure to prosecute their claims.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that with the exception of Plaintiff Furr (who was previously
dismissed from this action and relieved of his obligation to pay the filling fee) all Plaintiffs
became obligated to pay the filing fee for this action at the time they filed it, and the obligation
survives their dismissal from this action. Plaintiffs Pippins, Mcneal, and Williams filed a Motion
for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 3, 5, and 11), which shall be addressed in separate
The Clerk is DIRECTED to modify the case caption as follows: DANIEL PIPPINS,
Plaintiff v. PHILIP MCLAURIN, ST. CLAIR COUNTY JAIL, ST CLAIR COUNTY
MEDICAL STAFF, MARY ROBINSON-DAVIE, ARAMARK, Defendants.
This case is still subject to preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. No service
shall be ordered in the present case until the § 1915A review is completed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Pippins is GRANTED leave to file a “First
Amended Complaint” in this case on or before [December 6, 2017], in order to focus this case
on claims that pertain only to him. Should Plaintiff fail to file his First Amended Complaint
within the allotted time, this action may be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order or
for failure to prosecute his claims. FED. R. CIV. 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).
Should Plaintiff decide to file an amended complaint, it is strongly recommended that he
use the forms designed for use in this District for such actions. He should be careful to label the
pleading, “First Amended Complaint,” and he must list this case number (Case No. 17-00699JPG) on the first page. To enable Plaintiff to comply with this Order, the Clerk is DIRECTED to
mail Plaintiff Pippins a blank civil rights complaint form.
In the amended complaint, Plaintiff must, at a minimum, describe the actions taken by
each defendant that resulted in the deprivation of his federal constitutional rights. He 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 or
including any other unrelated claims in his amended complaint. Claims against different
groups of defendants that are found to be unrelated to one another will be further severed
into new cases, new case numbers will be assigned, and additional filing fees will be
Plaintiff is ADVISED that this dismissal shall not count as one of his allotted “strikes”
under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
An amended complaint supersedes and replaces the original Complaint, rendering the
original 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. Finally, the First Amended Complaint is subject to review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
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.
DATED: November 7, 2017
s/J. Phil Gilbert
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?