Kruger v. Baldwin et al

Filing 17

Case Management Order: The original screening order (Doc. 6 ) is STRICKEN, and the severed actions will be administratively closed without the assessment of a filing fee. The Amended Complaint supersedes and replaces the original Complaint. The Court will promptly screen the Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and will sever improperly joined claims as is appropriate. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 3/4/2019. (dsw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOSHUA W. KRUGER, # K-50216,
Plaintiff,
v.
JACQUELINE LASHBROOK, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court for case management. Plaintiff’s original Complaint
(Doc. 1) brought 16 counts against 23 defendants, including 13 John Doe defendants. On April 9,
2018, the then-assigned District Judge screened the original Complaint and severed Counts 3-16
of the original Complaint into 8 new cases. (Doc. 6). On April 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion
to Reconsider and for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, arguing that severance was improper
and that all of his claims should be allowed to proceed in a single action. (Doc. 7). The motion was
accompanied by a 33-page proposed Amended Complaint. On April 23, 2018, the then-assigned
District Judge declined to reconsider the severance of Plaintiff’s claims but granted leave to amend,
explaining as follows:
[H]aving 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.

Page 1 of 3

(Doc. 10, p. 4). In May 2018, identical orders were entered in each of the severed actions, stating
as follows:
In light of the filing of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint in Kruger v. Lashbrook,
et al., Case No. 18-cv-512-DRH-RJD (Doc. 11 in that case), which seeks to
consolidate the severed claims in this action back into the original case, further
proceedings in this severed case are STAYED until the completion of the threshold
merits review of the First Amended Complaint in Case No. 18-cv-512, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
(18-cv-819-NJR, Doc. 6; 18-cv-820-SMY, Doc. 6; 18-cv-818-SMY, Doc. 6; 18-cv-821-NJR,
Doc. 6; 18-cv-826-NJR, Doc. 6; 18-cv-822-MJR, Doc. 6; 18-cv-824-SMY, Doc. 6; 18-cv-825MJR, Doc. 6). On December 19, 2018, the then-assigned District Judge retired from the bench,
and this matter was reassigned to the undersigned District Judge.
Although the claims in Plaintiff’s 33-page Amended Complaint often overlap with the
claims in his original Complaint, there are also significant differences. For instance, the Amended
Complaint names additional defendants, expands on and/or slightly alters previous allegations, and
brings new allegations and/or claims. Additional claims in the Amended Complaint suggest that
some, but not all, of the severed claims could be consolidated into the instant action and/or that
some of the severed actions might be appropriately consolidated into less than 8 separate actions.
But the presence of both overlapping and new or altered allegations, combined with the sheer
number of allegations and defendants, makes it virtually impossible for the Court to conduct the
necessary § 1915A screening and determine what, if any, claims from the 8 severed actions should
be consolidated into this case or with each other. Accordingly, in the interest of judicial efficiency,
the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
The original screening order (Doc. 6) is STRICKEN, and the severed actions will be
administratively closed without the assessment of a filing fee. The Amended Complaint supersedes

Page 2 of 3

and replaces the original Complaint. The Court will promptly screen the Amended Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and will sever improperly joined claims as is appropriate.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 4, 2019
___________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3