Mason v. Spiller et al
Filing
47
ORDER denying 16 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 19 Motion to Supplement. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 5/4/2018. (tkm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MICKEY DEANGELO MASON,
#R04326,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WILLIAM A. SPILLER,
ORANGE CRUSH, and
JACQUELINE LASHBROOK,
Defendants.
Case No. 17-cv-867-DRH
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
This matter is now before the Court for review of a Motion for
Reconsideration (doc. 16) and a Motion to Supplement Reconsideration (doc. 19)
filed by Plaintiff Mickey Mason. In both motions, Plaintiff challenges the Court’s
decision to dismiss all but one claim on September 21, 2017 (doc. 9). For the
reasons set forth herein, both motions (docs. 16, 19) are DENIED.
Background
Plaintiff originally filed this action on August 15, 2017 (doc. 1). Before the
Court screened the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Plaintiff filed an
Amended Complaint (doc. 6) on August 25, 2017.
In it, he asserted various
claims for deprivations of his constitutional rights against officials at Menard
Correctional Center (“Menard”). The Court screened the Amended Complaint on
September 21, 2017, and identified the following claims:
1
Count 1 -
Claim against Defendants Wood, Smolek, and Butler, based on
Plaintiff’s warning that the defendants would be liable for
anything that occurred in the odd-numbered galleries of
Menard’s East Cell House on February 3, 2016.
Count 2 -
Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against the
Orange Crush Officers and Spiller for using excessive force
against Plaintiff on April 1, 2016.
Count 3 -
Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Defendants
Wood, Pierce, Rowold, and Butler for failing to respond to
Plaintiff’s grievances in 2016-17.
Count 4 -
First and/or Fourteenth Amendment denial of access to courts
claim against the Mailroom Staff and Internal Affairs for
regularly interfering with Plaintiff’s personal and legal mail in
2016-17.
Count 5 -
First and/or Fourteenth Amendment denial of access to courts
claim against the Orange Crush Officers who searched
Plaintiff’s cell and confiscated his personal property, including
his legal mail, documents, and materials, on August 3, 2017.
Count 6 -
Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
unnamed defendants who transferred Plaintiff into a one-man
cell with a cellmate on August 10, 2017.
Count 7 -
Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs
claim against unnamed defendants who have denied Plaintiff
access to medical treatment since April 1, 2016.
Count 8 -
Claim against Defendants for conspiring to retaliate against
Plaintiff for exercising his constitutional rights.
(Doc. 6; Doc. 9, p. 7). The Court dismissed Counts 1, 3, 6, 7, and 8 for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted (doc. 9, p. 13). The Court also
determined that the remaining claims (Counts 2, 4, and 5) were improperly joined
in the same action (doc. 9, pp. 10-12). Therefore, pursuant to Rules 18, 20, and
21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605
2
(7th Cir. 2007), the Court severed Counts 4 and 5 into two new cases (doc. 9, pp.
10-13). Count 2 remained in this action and survived preliminary review under §
1915A (doc. 9, p. 15; Doc. 10).
Motions to Reconsider
Plaintiff filed two motions seeking reconsideration of the Court’s Order
(doc. 9) dated September 21, 2017 (docs. 16 and 19).
In the Motion for
Reconsideration, Plaintiff asserts that Counts 1, 3, 6, 7, and 8 were erroneously
dismissed (doc. 16, pp. 1-5). He points to allegations set forth in his Complaint
(doc. 1) that demonstrate his efforts to put the defendants on notice of numerous
violations of his constitutional rights. Id. The defendants’ failure to address these
complaints allegedly shows that they “openly condoned” the constitutional
deprivations (doc. 16, p. 3).
In the same motion (doc. 16), Plaintiff also challenges the Court’s decision
to sever Counts 4 and 5 into two new cases (doc. 16, pp. 6-11). His argument is
not altogether clear. However, Plaintiff suggests that his claim for a conspiracy to
retaliate in Count 8 provides a basis for joining all of the claims together into a
single suit. Id. The claims arose after Plaintiff filed a complaint against William
Spiller on April 4, 2016 (doc. 16, p. 10).
Although the complaint was never
investigated, the subsequent events allegedly establish the existence of a
conspiracy to retaliate against him. Id.
In his Supplement (doc. 19), Plaintiff seeks the reinstatement of the
Fourteenth Amendment due process claim in Count 3 against Defendants Wood,
3
Rowold, Pierce, and Butler (doc. 19, pp. 1-6).
This claim for mishandling
Plaintiff’s grievances was dismissed with prejudice at screening (doc. 19, p. 2).
However, Plaintiff argues that it should have survived preliminary review because
the defendants’ failure to respond to his grievances demonstrated that they
approved, condoned, or turned a blind eye to the violations of his constitutional
rights (doc. 19, pp. 1-6).
Discussion
When looking to the substance of Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and
Supplement, it is clear that he seeks relief from the Order (doc. 9) signed on
September 21, 2017. Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 493 (7th Cir. 2008)
(pro se filings should be construed liberally). Although Document 9 is a non-final
order, the district court has jurisdiction to revisit its decision at any time before
the final judgment is entered. Terry v. Spencer, -- F.3d --, 2018 WL 1978927 (7th
Cir. April 27, 2018) (citing Mintz v. Caterpillar Inc., 788 F.3d 673, 679 (7th Cir.
2015); Galvan v. Norberg, 678 F.3d 581, 587 (7th Cir. 2012)). For the reasons
set forth herein, the Court finds that Counts 1, 3, 6, 7, and 8 were properly
dismissed and Counts 4 and 5 were properly severed.
Plaintiff’s reliance on allegations in the Complaint in support of his motions
is misplaced. This Court did not screen the Complaint (doc. 1). Just ten days
after he filed it, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (doc. 6).
The Amended
Complaint superseded and replaced the original Complaint, rendering the original
void (doc. 9, pp. 1-2) (citing Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., 354 F.3d
4
632, 638 n. 1 (7th Cir. 2004)).
The Court’s Order (doc. 9) resulted from its
review of the Amended Complaint.
The Court has considered those arguments that pertain to allegations also
set forth in the Amended Complaint and finds them unpersuasive.
Plaintiff
primarily points to allegations that demonstrate his efforts to put the defendants
on notice of the constitutional violations (doc. 16, p. 2; Doc. 6, p. 11). Although a
grievance officer’s decision to ignore an inmate’s complaints may support a
constitutional claim, Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 781 (7th Cir. 2015), the
claims in this case were dismissed for other reasons.
Count 1 stated no claim for relief because it was contingent upon future
events that had not yet occurred. Plaintiff allegedly put the defendants on notice
that they would be liable for future violations of his constitutional rights that
occurred in Menard’s East Cell House.
A § 1983 claim arises after a
constitutional deprivation occurs, not before.
Count 3 was dismissed because it has long been held that no independent
due process claim arises from the mishandling of grievances.
Grievance
procedures are not constitutionally mandated and do no implicate the Due
Process Clause per se. Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011).
See also Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763, 772 n.3 (7th Cir. 2008); George
v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007); Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422,
1430 (7th Cir. 1996).
Although Plaintiff correctly points out that a defendant
cannot avoid liability under § 1983 by ignoring an inmate’s grievances or
5
complaints, the First Amended Complaint supports no independent claim under
the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause on this ground.
Counts 6 and 7 were dismissed because Plaintiff failed to identify a
defendant in connection with either of these claims. The Court was thus unable
to evaluate whether a defendant was personally responsible for the deprivation of
his Eighth Amendment rights. The reason that plaintiffs are required to associate
specific defendants with specific claims is so these defendants are put on notice of
the claims brought against them and so they can properly answer the complaint.
A plaintiff cannot state a claim against a defendant simply by listing the
defendant’s name in the case caption. Collins v. Kibort, 143 F.3d 331, 334 (7th
Cir. 1998). These claims were dismissed without prejudice, and Plaintiff is not
foreclosed from reasserting them in this, or another, action.
Finally, Count 8 was dismissed because it was based entirely upon
conclusory statements that Plaintiff’s conspired to violate his rights by retaliating
against him. Plaintiff now argues that the timing of the claims—which all arose
after he filed a complaint against Spiller—establishes the existence of a conspiracy
to retaliate against him. But timing, alone, falls short of establishing a claim for
conspiracy or retaliation. Absent any other allegations in support of this claim,
the Court finds that it was properly dismissed without prejudice, leaving Plaintiff
free to re-plead the claim.
Finally, the Court finds that severance of Counts 4 and 5 into separate suits
was a proper exercise of discretion. The only claim remaining in this action was
6
Count 2, an excessive force claim against Spiller and the Orange Crush Officers
for an incident that occurred on April 1, 2016. Count 4 involved an access to
courts claim against mailroom staff and internal affairs officers who routinely
interfered with Plaintiff’s legal mail in 2016-17. Count 5 involved a claim against
the Orange Crush Tactical Team for confiscating Plaintiff’s personal property
during a shakedown of his cell on August 3, 2017. The Court found that these
claims against different defendants were unrelated to one another.
Under Rule 20(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, multiple
defendants may be joined in one action only if “any right to relief is asserted
against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out
of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” and
“any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.”
FED. R. CIV. P. 20(a)(2)(A)-(B). Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
allows a party asserting a claim to join, as independent or alternative claims, as
many claims as it has against an opposing party. FED. R. CIV. P. 18. Rule 21 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the Court “at any time, on just
terms” to add or drop a party and/or sever any claim against a party. FED. R. CIV.
P. 21. These rules give district courts “considerable flexibility” in managing civil
litigation. UWM Student Ass’n v. Lovell, -- F.3d --, 2018 WL 1940531, *7 (7th
Cir. April 25, 2018). The Court determined that the claims arose from separate
transactions or occurrences and involved different defendants.
As such, they
were improperly joined in the same suit. Once a district court finds misjoinder,
7
the remedy is “severance or dismissal without prejudice.”
Lovell, 2018 WL
1940531 at *7. The Court’s decision to sever these claims represents a proper
exercise of discretion.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s
Motion for Reconsideration (doc. 16) and Supplement (doc. 19) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Judge Herndon
2018.05.04
14:20:05 -05'00'
United States District Judge
8
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?