Kruger v. Baldwin et al

Filing 10

ORDER denying 7 Motion for Reconsideration ; granting 7 Motion for Leave to File: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk SHALL FILE Plaintiff's proposed Amended Complaint and attached exhibits, received on April 16, 2018, and consisting of 33 pages, as the First Amended Complaint in this action. The review of the First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A shall be set forth in a separate Order. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 4/23/2018. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOSHUA W. KRUGER, # K-50216,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 18-cv-512-DRH-RJD

JACQUELINE A. LASHBROOK
(Official Capacity Only),
JOHN DOE #1 (Mail Room Supervisor),
and JOHN DOE #13,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion to Reconsider and for
Leave to File an Amended Complaint,” filed on April 12, 2018. (Doc. 7). On April
9, 2018, this Court severed Counts 3-16 into 8 new cases. (Doc. 6). Count 2
remains in this action. Plaintiff’s motion argues that in severing Counts 3-16, the
Court misunderstood some of his claims.

Further, he asserts that all of the

claims should remain together in a single action, because Butler, Baldwin, and
Lashbrook made the “policies and practices” which led to the violations of his
constitutional rights, and “acted in conspiracy” together. (Doc. 7, p. 2). Along
with his motion, Plaintiff has tendered a 33-page proposed Amended Complaint,
which has not yet been filed of record pending the resolution of the instant
motion.
As discussed below, the portion of Plaintiff’s motion that seeks to rePage 1 of 5

consolidate the severed claims shall be denied.

However, the portion that

requests leave to file an Amended Complaint shall be granted.

The Amended

Complaint shall then undergo a threshold merits review pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A.
A. Request to Reconsider Severance Order (Doc. 6)
Motions that seek to alter or amend an order of the Court, if they are filed
within 28 days of the challenged order, are generally considered under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Plaintiff’s motion was filed within this time frame.
Rule 59(e) permits a court to amend an order or judgment only if the movant
demonstrates a manifest error of law or fact or presents newly discovered
evidence that was not previously available. See, e.g., Sigsworth v. City of Aurora,
487 F.3d 506, 511-12 (7th Cir. 2007); Harrington v. City of Chicago, 433 F.3d
542 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing Bordelon v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs., 233 F.3d
524, 529 (7th Cir. 2000)). “A manifest error [of law or fact] is not demonstrated
by the disappointment of the losing party.

It is the wholesale disregard,

misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent.” Oto v. Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (quotation omitted). Further, the
Seventh Circuit has made it clear that Rule 59(e) “does not provide a vehicle for a
party to undo its own procedural failures, and it certainly does not allow a party
to introduce new evidence or advance arguments that could and should have been
presented to the district court prior to the judgment.”

Moro v. Shell Oil Co.,

91 F.3d 872, 876 (7th Cir. 1996) (citing LB Credit Corp. v. Resolution Trust

Page 2 of 5

Corp., 49 F.3d 1263, 1267 (7th Cir. 1995)).
Plaintiff argues that all the claims in the original action should remain
together because former Warden Butler, Director Baldwin, and Warden
Lashbrook “began, orchestrated, and implemented the policies and practices in
question,” and “acted ‘in conspiracy’ together.” (Doc. 7, p. 2). Plaintiff then refers
to page 12, paragraph 15, and page 13, paragraph 17, of the Complaint in
connection with this premise. (Doc. 1). However, neither of these paragraphs
contains any facts to support Plaintiff’s contention that Butler, Baldwin, and
Lashbrook were responsible for all the violations of his rights, or that they were
part of a conspiracy.

The first of these paragraphs contains no mention

whatsoever of Butler, Baldwin, or Lashbrook, let alone the claim that their
policies or conspiracy caused the violations. (Doc. 1, p. 12, para. 15). Paragraph
17 on page 13 mentions only Baldwin, and asserts that he, together with the John
Does (#4-11) on the Religious Practice Advisory Board, failed to respond to
Plaintiff’s grievances and letters.

The Court has examined the rest of the

Complaint, and has not found any factual statements in any other section to
support Plaintiff’s current assertion that the constitutional violations were caused
by Butler, Baldwin, and Lashbrook’s policies, or their “conspiracy.”

To the

contrary, Plaintiff alleged that Butler and Lashbrook “knew of this policy and/or
custom” of the mail room staff to open mail from the Attorney General, from
having reviewed prisoners’ grievances.

(Doc. 1, p. 10).

Based on the actual

allegations contained in the original Complaint, the Court did not err in failing to

Page 3 of 5

link Butler, Baldwin, and Lashbrook to each of Plaintiff’s claims of wrongdoing.
Plaintiff next argues that the severance order “guts the crux of his
Complaint – that defendants are/were acting in conspiracy together to deprive
plaintiff of his constitutional rights all in retaliation.” (Doc. 7, p. 3). Plaintiff did
allege retaliation on the part of some Defendants, and this is reflected in Counts 2,
5, 8, 10, and 15. However, Plaintiff did not allege retaliation in connection with
the events underlying Counts 3, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, or 16. As pled, the original
Complaint does not set forth a factual basis for the premise that all the
Defendants were acting together to retaliate against Plaintiff, such that every count
in the Complaint could properly proceed together.
To summarize, having reconsidered the severance of claims based on the
original Complaint, the Court finds no error in the application of Rule 20(a)(2) to
sever Plaintiff’s claims as directed in Doc. 6. Therefore, the portion of Plaintiff’s
motion (Doc. 7) seeking reconsideration of the Order of April 9, 2018, is DENIED
pursuant to Rule 59(e).
The Court notes, however, that having examined the proposed Amended
Complaint, it appears that Plaintiff’s revisions and additional factual allegations
may lead to the consolidation of some of his claims after review of that pleading
has been completed.
B. Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint
Plaintiff tendered the proposed Amended Complaint on April 12, 2018,
only 3 days after service on Defendant Lashbrook (in her official capacity) was

Page 4 of 5

ordered. Lashbrook’s waiver of service was returned to the Clerk on April 16,
2018. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(A), Plaintiff may amend his
pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after service of the original
pleading. Plaintiff’s proposed Amended Complaint was timely submitted under
that Rule. Accordingly, this portion of Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 7) is GRANTED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk SHALL FILE Plaintiff’s
proposed Amended Complaint and attached exhibits, received on April 16, 2018,
and consisting of 33 pages, as the First Amended Complaint in this action.
The review of the First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
shall be set forth in a separate Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Herndon
2018.04.23
11:48:58 -05'00'
United States District Judge

Page 5 of 5