Mason v. Spiller et al

Filing 99

ORDER DENYING 93 MOTION for Leave to File His Third Amended Complaint filed by Mickey Deangelo Mason. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 6/20/2019. (ely)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MICKEY DEANGELO MASON,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM SPILLER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17-cv-867-NJR-RJD

ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (Doc.
93). On August 15, 2017, Plaintiff Mickey Mason, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging his
constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center
(“Menard”). Plaintiff, through counsel, previously filed an Amended Complaint setting forth the
following claims:
Count 1:

Eighth Amendment – Excessive Force against Orange Crush Officers and
Defendant Spiller

Count 2:

Eighth Amendment – Failure to Intervene against Orange Crush Officers

Count 3:

Eighth Amendment – Deliberate Indifference against Orange Crush
Officers and Defendant Spiller

Plaintiff’s proposed Third Amended Complaint adds 28 new Defendants. Plaintiff seeks
leave to name the 28 Defendants as the “Orange Crush Officers” previously identified by a generic
designation. Plaintiff identified the newly named Defendants from responses to Requests for
Production which identified the name(s) of the “Orange Crush” officers working at Menard
Page 1 of 3

Correctional Center on April 1, 2016 at the East Wing, Gallery 7. The Court is unable to discern
whether the discovery responses actually identified all 28 newly named Defendants as “Orange
Crush” officers working at Menard in the East Wing, Gallery 7 on April 1, 2016. Plaintiff’s
proposed complaint alleges each and every one of the 28 newly identified Defendants inflicted
violence upon Plaintiff that was excessive and unnecessary and that the infliction of the violence
was willful, intentional, malicious, and/or done with a reckless indifference and callous disregard
for his rights. The proposed complaint also alleges each of the 28 new Defendants failed to
intervene and acted with deliberate indifference.
Plaintiff’s proposed complaint names the newly identified officers, but fails to make
specific factual allegations against the newly named Defendants. Plaintiff states a number of
allegations in the “Background” section that “Orange Crush” ordered a strip search and an Orange
Crush tactical officer forcibly pushed him and grabbed him by the back of the neck and choked
him, however, Plaintiff fails to identify which of the newly named Defendants engaged in these
actions against him.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that a party may amend a pleading and that
leave to amend should be freely given "when justice so requires." The Seventh Circuit recognizes
that "the complaint merely serves to put the defendant on notice and is to be freely amended or
constructively amended as the case develops, as long as amendments do not unfairly surprise or
prejudice the defendant." Toth v. USX Corp., 883 F.2d 1297, 1298 (7th Cir. 1989); see also
Winger v. Winger, 82 F.3d 140, 144 (7th Cir. 1996). “Reasons for finding that leave should not
be granted include undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated
failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing
party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.” Airborne Beepers
Page 2 of 3

& Video, Inc. v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 499 F.3d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 2007).
In conclusory fashion, Plaintiff asserts his excessive force, failure to intervene, and
deliberate indifference claims against all 28 newly identified Defendants. Plaintiff, however, fails
to set forth factual allegations of the newly named Defendants’ personal involvement in the alleged
excessive force, failure to intervene, or deliberate indifference claims. The Court finds futility of
amendment and declines leave to amend the complaint. The parties have been granted an
extension of the discovery deadline.

Plaintiff is advised to use the discovery process to

specifically identify the “Orange Crush” officers personally involved in the strip search, alleged
use of force, and escort of Plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Third Amended

Complaint (Doc. 93) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 20, 2019
s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3