Means v. Haper

Filing 8

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the COMPLAINT (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. IT IS ORDERED that Defendant JOE HAPER is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon wh ich relief may be granted. IT IS ORDERED that, should he wish to proceed with this case, plaintiff must: (1) file a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis that includes his updated financial information for the 6-month period preceding this a ction (September 1, 2017 through March 20, 2018) or prepay the full $400.00 filing fee for this action consistent with the instructions set forth in the letter from the Clerk of this Court dated March 20, 2018 (Doc. 7), and no later than the extended deadline of April 24, 2018; and (2) file a First Amended Complaint by the same deadline of April 24, 2018. Failure to comply with this deadline or the instructions set forth in the Clerks letter (Doc. 7) and this Order shall result in dismissal of this action with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order and/or for failure to prosecute his claims. (Action due by 4/24/2018, Amended Pleadings due by 4/24/2018). Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 3/28/2018. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOEL MEANS,
#N23056,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JOE HAPER,
Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-00590-DRH
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HERNDON, District Judge:
Plaintiff Joel Means is currently housed at Chester Mental Health Center
located in Chester, Illinois.

He brings this civil rights action against an

administrator at Chester Mental Health Center named Joe Haper. 1 (Doc. 1, p. 1).
The allegations in the Complaint are largely incoherent. Id. For this reason, the
Court is unable to determine the exact nature of plaintiff’s claims against Haper,
although they appear to relate to an untreated stomach problem. (Doc. 1, p. 4).
Plaintiff failed to explain what role Haper played in denying him medical care or
clearly describe what relief he now seeks. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
The Complaint is subject to preliminary review. However, the Court lacks
sufficient information about plaintiff’s status as a “prisoner” or a poor person to
determine whether screening is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which
1

Plaintiff originally filed this action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on March 5, 2018. Means v. Haper, No. 18-cv-01653 (N.D. Ill. 2018).
The Northern District of Illinois transferred the case to this District on March 20, 2018,
after determining that venue was proper in the Southern District of Illinois.

1

applies to prisoners, or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which applies to non-prisoners
who seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Plaintiff does not disclose
the basis for his current confinement at Chester. He also failed to file a motion
seeking leave to proceed as a poor person. Regardless of his status as a prisoner,
the Complaint fails to state any claim for relief and shall be dismissed.
Section 1915A governs civil actions brought by prisoners against a
governmental entity or officer.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

The statute defines

“prisoner” to include “any person incarcerated or detained in any facility who is
accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations
of criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release,
or diversionary program.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c). The Court is required to dismiss
a prisoner’s complaint, or any portion of it, that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted or that seeks monetary relief from
a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1)-(2).
A civil rights action filed by a non-prisoner who seeks leave to proceed in

forma pauperis (“IFP”) is screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Notwithstanding any filing fee that has been paid, § 1915(e)(2) compels the Court
to dismiss a case that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). See also Luevano v. Wal–

Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1018 (7th Cir. 2013).
The instant Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

2

granted and therefore warrants dismissal under both statutes. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). An action fails to state a claim for
relief when it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
The claim of entitlement to relief must cross “the line between possibility and
plausibility.” Id. at 557.
In order to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that he was
deprived of a constitutionally protected right by a defendant who acted under
color of state law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

See also McNabola v. Chicago Transit

Auth., 10 F.3d 501, 513 (7th Cir. 1993); Patrick v. Jasper Cnty., 901 F.2d 561,
565 (7th Cir. 1990). A government official may not be held liable under § 1983
based only on his or her role as a supervisor. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 US. 662, 676
(2009).

Liability requires personal involvement in or responsibility for the

deprivation of a constitutional right. Knight v. Wiseman, 590 F.3d 458, 462-63
(7th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted); Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561 (7th
Cir. 1995). In other words, a plaintiff who claims that he was denied adequate
medical care must name as defendants those individuals who are responsible for
the inadequate medical care and describe what each defendant did, or failed to
do, to treat him. This does not require plaintiff to describe his claims in great
detail. He must set forth a clear and simple statement of his claim against each
defendant. See FED. R. CIV. P. 8. Plaintiff fails to satisfy this requirement because
his allegations against Haper are incoherent. Having failed to state a coherent

3

claim, the Complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiff shall be

granted leave to file an amended complaint, if he wishes to pursue this claim
further. However, he is bound by the Court’s deadline and instructions in the
below disposition.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the COMPLAINT (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED
without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant JOE HAPER is dismissed without
prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
IT IS ORDERED that, should he wish to proceed with this case, plaintiff
must: (1) file a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis that includes his
updated financial information for the 6-month period preceding this action
(September 1, 2017 through March 20, 2018) or prepay the full $400.00 filing fee
for this action consistent with the instructions set forth in the letter from the
Clerk of this Court dated March 20, 2018 (Doc. 7), and no later than the extended

deadline of April 24, 2018; and (2) file a First Amended Complaint by the same
deadline of April 24, 2018.

Failure to comply with this deadline or the

instructions set forth in the Clerk’s letter (Doc. 7) and this Order shall result in
dismissal of this action with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order
and/or for failure to prosecute his claims. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). See generally

Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Johnson v. Kamminga, 34
F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

4

Should plaintiff decide to file a First Amended Complaint, it is strongly
recommended that he use the forms designed for use in this District for such
actions. He should label the form, “First Amended Complaint,” and he should
use the case number for this action (i.e., 18-cv-00590-DRH). The pleading shall
present each claim in a separate count, and each count shall specify, by name,
each defendant alleged to be liable under the count, as well as the actions alleged
to have been taken by that defendant. Plaintiff should attempt to include the facts
of his case in chronological order, inserting each defendant’s name where
necessary to identify the actors. Plaintiff should refrain from filing unnecessary
exhibits. Plaintiff should include only related claims in his amended complaint.
Claims against different defendants that are unrelated to one another will be
severed into new cases, new case numbers will be assigned, and additional filing
fees will be assessed.
An amended complaint supersedes and replaces the original complaint,
rendering the original complaint void. See Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass’n of

Am., 354 F.3d 632, 638 n.1 (7th Cir. 2004). The Court will not accept piecemeal
amendments to a complaint. Thus, the First Amended Complaint must stand on
its own, without reference to any previous pleading, and plaintiff must re-file any
exhibits he wishes the Court to consider along with the First Amended Complaint.
The First Amended Complaint is subject to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A or
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Plaintiff is further ADVISED that his obligation to pay the filing fee for this

5

action was incurred at the time the action was filed, thus the filing fee of $400.00 2
remains due and payable, regardless of whether plaintiff elects to file a First
Amended Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d
464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998).
Finally, plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to
keep the Clerk of Court and each opposing party informed of any change in his
address; the Court will not independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall
be done in writing and not later than 7 days after a transfer or other change in
address occurs.

Failure to comply with this order will cause a delay in the

transmission of court documents and may result in dismissal of this action for
want of prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
In order to assist plaintiff in preparing his updated Motion for Leave to
Proceed in forma pauperis and First Amended Complaint, the Clerk is
DIRECTED to mail plaintiff a blank IFP motion and civil rights complaint form,
as well as a motion for recruitment of counsel.

Judge Herndon
2018.03.28
15:31:41 -05'00'

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge

2

Effective May 1, 2013, the filing fee for a civil case increased from $350.00 to $400.00,
by the addition of a new $50.00 administrative fee for filing a civil action, suit, or
proceeding in a district court. See Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees - District Court
Miscellaneous Fee Schedule, 28 U.S.C. § 1914, No. 14. A litigant who is granted IFP
status, however, is exempt from paying the new $50.00 fee.

6