Buckley v. Crammer et al

Filing 1

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER severing case number 17-1085-JPG. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 2/28/2018. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

SUNTEZ PASLEY,
TAIWAN M. DAVIS,
SHAWN BUCKLEY, and
RICHARD TURNER,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CRAMMER,
COLE,
COOK,
PHILIPS,
ROSS,
HAWKINS, and
SNYDER
Defendants.

Case No. 17−cv–1085−JPG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GILBERT, District Judge:
Plaintiffs originally filed suit on October 10, 2017, as part of a group of 7. (Doc. 1). On
October 16, 2017, the Court entered a Boriboune Order, warning Plaintiffs of the perils of
participating in group litigation and directing them to submit an affirmative statement to the
Court that they wished to proceed as a group. (Doc. 3). Plaintiffs all failed to respond to the
Order, although they did submit motions for IFP and other motions, indicating to the Court that
they were still interested in pursuing this case. The Court then entered another Order directing
Plaintiffs to indicate affirmatively that they wished to proceed together. (Doc. 19). Plaintiffs
Marshall, Lacy, and Rush never responded, and were accordingly dismissed from this action.
(Doc. 26).

1

The Court then conducted a screening on the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
(Doc. 29). The Court found that Counts 1-3 failed to state a claim, and that Court 4 was legally
frivolous. (Doc. 29). Plaintiffs were directed to file an Amended Complaint no later than
February 8, 2018. (Doc. 29). On February 5, 2018, Buckley submitted a 19-page Complaint
signed by him alone. (Doc. 36). On February 8, 2018, Davis, Turner, and Pasley all filed
separate and individual Complaints. (Doc. 38) (Doc. 40) (Doc. 41). None of the Plaintiffs
signed any other Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Upon review of the Complaints submitted by the

Plaintiffs, the Court finds severance appropriate.
Complaints submitted by Plaintiffs
Shawn Buckley’s Complaint brings claims against Cook, Crammer, Ross, Phillips,
Synder, and Hawkins. (Doc. 36, pp. 1-2). Buckley alleges that the security cameras at the Alton
County Jail violate his constitutional rights. (Doc. 36, p. 5). He also alleges that Dr. Aragona
prescribed him a special diet to compensate for the Jail’s nutritionally inadequate diet, but that
Cook did not honor the special diet. Id. Buckley also alleges that he received improper
treatment after oral surgery, causing him dry socket and an infection, and that the defendants
delayed securing him medical care. Id. Buckley also alleges that his psychological needs were
not met. Id. Finally, Buckley alleges that he was deprived of cleaning supplies and religious
services. (Doc. 36, p. 6).
Taiwan Davis’ Complaint alleges that he was deprived of access to the courts because he
could not oppose a motion for a stay filed on his behalf by a court-appointed attorney in his
criminal case. (Doc. 38, p. 5). Davis submitted an exhibit in support of his complaint that shows
he grieved the issue on October 12, 2017, 2 days after the original complaint in this case was
filed. (Doc. 39).

2

Richard Turner’s Complaint describes an incident that occurred January 28, 2018 where
he was presented for a family visit while handcuffed. (Doc. 40, p. 4). Turner alleges that he has
experienced unhygienic conditions, no law library access, nutritionally inadequate food, lack of
exercise, and lack of heat. (Doc. 40, p. 7). Specifically, Turner complains that his rights were
violated on May 21, 2017, November 2, 2017, November 18, 2017, January 9, 2018, January 10,
2018, January 12, 2018, and in general between December 1, 2017 and January 17, 2018. (Doc.
40, p. 8).
Suntez Pasley’s Complaint alleges that between September 25, 2017 and the present he
has been denied access to the courts, confined to his cell for approximately 23 hours every day,
subjected to unhygienic conditions of confinement, subjected to inadequate nutrition, and
subjected to a cold cell. (Doc. 41, p. 5).
Discussion
In George v. Smith, the Seventh Circuit emphasized that unrelated claims belong in
separate lawsuits, “not only to prevent the sort of morass” produced by multi-claim suits, “but
also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(g)); Wheeler v. Talbot, 695 F.
App’x 151, 152 (7th Cir. 2017) (failing to sever mis-joined claims prejudices the United States
Treasury); Owens v. Godinez, 860 F.3d 434, 436 (7th Cir. 2017). The Court has broad discretion
to sever claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 or to dismiss improperly joined
parties. See Owens v. Hinsely, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011); Rice v. Sunrise Express, Inc.,
209 F.3d 1008, 1016 (7th Cir. 2000).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 permits joinder of all claims that “aris[e] out of the
same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; [when] any question of

3

law of fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.” Both requirements must be satisfied
to justify joinder and concerns of judicial economy. Elmore v. Henderson, 227 F.3d 1009, 1012
(7th Cir. 2000).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not contemplate multiple controlling complaints
in a lawsuit. Right now there are 4 individual complaints in this suit. Each Plaintiff has signed
his own separate Complaint, and no Complaint is signed by more than one individual. Each
request for relief differs from the other Complaints. This is unacceptable; there can only be 1
governing Complaint. The Court takes the fact that the Plaintiff submitted distinct Complaints as
an indication that Plaintiffs no longer wish to proceed together in this lawsuit.
Even if the Plaintiffs had not filed separate Complaints, the Court would still be inclined
to sever this action because it is clear that the events Plaintiffs complain of are not part of the
same transaction or occurrence. Buckley puts the medical care he received after oral surgery at
issue, as well as medical care he received in response to his psychological issues. No other
Plaintiff raises issues regarding medical care or treatment, and none of their claims rely on facts
related to Buckley’s treatment. Buckley also alleges that he was prescribed a specific diet by
medical staff that correctional staff failed to honor.

Despite generalized allegations of an

inadequate diet, no other Plaintiff alleges that he was put on a medical diet. Thus Buckley has
raised issues that invoke different standards of law and involved incidents specific to him alone
in his Complaint. Portions of his Complaint are not part of the same transaction or occurrence as
the other Plaintiffs.
Likewise, Davis’ claim is specifically about proceedings in his criminal case in October
2017. No other Plaintiff is a defendant in that same criminal case, which means that the facts at

4

issue are distinct from the factual issues raised by the other Plaintiffs. As this is the only issue in
Davis’ case, there are no grounds to join his claim with the other Plaintiffs.
Turner refers to a specific incident on January 28, 2018 in his Complaint. This is after
the date that Pasley signed his Complaint, making it completely unrelated to anything in Pasley’s
Complaint. No other Plaintiff mentions January 28, 2018 as an incident date, meaning that there
is a distinct factual predicate to Turner’s January 28th claim. Turner also attached grievances in
support of his contentions, but only 1 grievance is signed by anyone other than Turner1 or refers
to anyone other than Turner. The majority of the incidents that Turner’s Complaint and the
associated grievances refer to happened to Turner alone, making them transactionally distinct
from the other Plaintiffs. Turner’s claims do not share a factual predicate with any of his coplaintiffs, making joinder inappropriate.
Unlike the other inmates, Pasley actually refers to the other Plaintiffs in his statement of
claim.

However, his allegations are general and vague and there is nothing in Pasley’s

Complaint to suggest that his claims are part of the same transaction or occurrence as the facts at
issue in any other Plaintiff’s Complaint. It is not sufficient for the Plaintiffs to invoke the same
constitutional amendments and make general allegations that they suffered from the same
conditions at some vague, unspecified time. In order to be properly joined, Plaintiffs must show
that their claims rely on the same transaction or occurrence, and there are no facts in Pasley’s
Complaint which support that conclusion. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to show
that their claims rest on a common transaction or occurrence.
In the alternative, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its discretionary authority
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 to sever these claims. Plaintiffs have struggled to proceed as a unit,

1

The subject of this grievance—that the Kool aid at the jail is not sweet enough—is not a constitutional

claim.

5

despite the Court’s warnings in its prior Orders, and the Court finds that it will not prejudice the
Plaintiffs to proceed individually.
For all of the above reasons, the Court severs this action into 4 separate actions. Lead
Plaintiff Pasley will stay in this case. The first severed case will contain the Complaint filed by
Shawn Buckley. (Doc. 36). The second severed case will contain the Complaint filed by
Taiwan Davis and the accompanying exhibit. (Doc. 38) (Doc. 39). The third severed case will
contain the Complaint filed by Richard Turner. (Doc. 40). Once the case has been severed, a
new judge assignment and case number will be assigned to each severed case.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all Plaintiffs’ claims shall be severed into individual
cases with 1 Plaintiff each because the claims brought by the Plaintiffs do not arise out of the
same transactions or occurrence and as an exercise of discretion of this Court. Plaintiff Pasley’s
Complaint and claims will stay in the present action. All other Plaintiffs shall be severed into
new actions as follows. The claims in the severed cases shall be subject to merits review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A after the new case numbers and judge assignments are made.
In Plaintiff Buckley’s new case in this Court, the Clerk is DIRECTED to file the
following documents:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

This Memorandum and Order;
The Amended Complaint (Doc. 36); and
The Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 5); and
The Order granting the Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 30); and
Receipt of Buckley’s $170.22 filing fee on February 22, 2018.

No service shall be ordered on the defendants in the severed case until the § 1915A review is
completed.

6

In Plaintiff Davis’ new case in this Court, the Clerk is DIRECTED to file the following
documents:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

This Memorandum and Order;
The Amended Complaint (Doc. 38); and
Exhibit (Doc. 39); and
The Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 14); and
The Order granting the Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 33).

No service shall be ordered on the defendants in the severed case until the § 1915A review is
completed.
In Plaintiff Turner’s new case in this Court, the Clerk is DIRECTED to file the
following documents:
1)
2)
3)
4)

This Memorandum and Order;
The Amended Complaint (Doc. 40); and
The Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 6); and
The Order granting the Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 31).

No service shall be ordered on the defendants in the severed case until the § 1915A review is
completed.
DATED: February 28, 2018

s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
United States District Judge

7