Augusta v. Mahaffey et al
Filing
1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER severing case number 17-798-SMY. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 4/10/2018. (tjk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
QUENNEL AUGUSTA,
K81797
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 17-cv-798-SMY
STEPHANIE WAGGONER,
JOHN BALDWIN,
RANDY PFISTER,
C/O MAHAFFEY,
ANGELA SCHWAGI,
C/O ROLLING, and
C/O BERG,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
OVERVIEW
The Original Complaint in this case (Doc. 1) was filed pro se by Quennel Augusta and
Shawn J. Flores pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that they were subjected to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement at Vandalia Correctional Center (“Vandalia”) and
Stateville Correctional Center (“Stateville”). On September 1, 2017, the Court entered an Order
pursuant to Boriboune v. Berge, 391 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 2004). (Doc. 5). On October 4, 2017,
consistent with the Boriboune Order and Plaintiffs’ responses (or failure to respond), the claims
of Plaintiff Flores were severed into a new action (17-cv-1071-NJR) and Plaintiff Augusta was
granted leave to file an amended complaint in this action. (Doc. 12).
Augusta’s First Amended Complaint was dismissed without prejudice and with leave to
amend on November 6, 2017.
(Doc. 18). On November 27, 2017, Augusta filed his Second
1
Amended Complaint (Doc. 19) and notified the Court of his transfer to Jacksonville Correctional
Center (“Jacksonville”).
The Second Amended Complaint includes a litany of complaints
pertaining to Augusta’s prior incarcerations at Vandalia (Doc. 19, pp. 5-11, 15) and Stateville
(Doc. 19, pp. 12-13), where he was housed for a period of time in 2016. The allegations can be
roughly divided into four sets of claims: (1) Eighth Amendment claims related to Vandalia and
directed against Waggoner (Vandalia’s Warden), Baldwin (IDOC’s Director) and unspecified
staff at Vandalia; (2) Eighth Amendment claims related to the denial of meals at Vandalia and
directed against Mahaffey (Correctional Officer) and Berg (Correctional Officer); (3) Fourteenth
Amendment claims pertaining to the opening of legal mail at Vandalia and directed against
Schwagi (Mailroom Staff Member); and (4) Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims
pertaining to Stateville and directed against Randy Pfister (Stateville’s Warden), Rolling
(Correctional Officer) and unspecified staff at Stateville.
PRELIMINARY REVIEW AND SEVERANCE
The Second Amended Complaint is now before the Court for a preliminary review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Under § 1915A, the Court is required to screen prisoner
complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
The Court must
dismiss any portion of the complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Vandalia – Claims Directed Against Baldwin and Waggoner
Augusta generally claims that Vandalia is an “insufficient” facility.
(Doc. 19, p. 9).
In
support of this claim, he describes the following cell conditions: (1) urine, rust stained and bug
2
infested mattress; (2) extremely cold temperatures; (3) mattress located in close vicinity to the
bathroom, exposing Augusta to unsanitary conditions; and (4) lack of cleaning supplies.
(Doc.
19, pp. 5-7, 10). Augusta also complains about the following conditions: (1) certain areas of the
prison do not have working water fountains, which meant there was a lack of “proper cold
drinking water” and Augusta had to use the water fountain in the chapel; (2) there are birds in the
cafeteria; and (3) inmates, who are not licensed food service workers, are allowed to cook in the
kitchen, in violation of state law. (Doc. 19, pp. 5, 7-8, 13). Augusta also alleges that his health
and safety were at risk while housed at Vandalia because Vandalia lacked security cameras,
inmates were allowed to keep razors in their personal effects and because he was exposed to
inmates with scabies. (Doc. 19, pp. 6-8, 10-11).
Augusta associates these claims with Defendants Waggoner, Baldwin and unspecified
Vandalia employees.
However, the references to Waggoner and Baldwin throughout the Second
Amended Complaint do not specify how these defendants were personally involved in the
alleged violations.
Instead, the Complaint suggests that these individuals are subject to liability
because they maintain supervisory positions and should have known about the complained of
conditions. (Doc. 19, pp. 5-11).
Augusta also claims that Waggoner violated his Eighth Amendment rights when she
allowed her employees to strip search him in the gym in front of 80 other inmates. (Doc. 19, p.
15). Augusta alleges that this occurred twice in one month. Id. He also alleges that during the
strip searches, other inmates stared at him and made comments about his penis and underwear.
Id. This left Augusta feeling humiliated, angry, depressed and ashamed. Id.
Finally, Augusta alleges that Waggoner and Waggoner’s employees do not follow the
proper procedures with regard to handling grievances. (Doc. 19, p. 8).
3
Vandalia – Claims Directed Against Mahaffey and Berg
Augusta alleges that Officer Mahaffey and Officer Berg have denied Augusta and other
inmates’ meals. (Doc. 19, p. 7). And as a result, Augusta and the other inmates had “to starve.”
Id.
Vandalia – Claims Directed Against Schwagi
Augusta alleges that Angela Schwagi has opened Augusta’s legal mail outside of his
presence. (Doc. 19, p. 7).
Stateville – Claims Directed Against Pfister and Rolling
Augusta was housed at Stateville Correctional Center in 2016.
(Doc. 19, p. 12).
He
alleges that while at Stateville, he was denied the opportunity to leave his cell for one hour per
day.
Id.
Id.
He associates this claim with Defendant Pfister (Stateville’s Warden) and Pfister’s
employees.
Augusta asserts that this violated his constitutional rights and state correctional rules.
Id.
However, Augusta does not specify how Pfister or any specific employee was
personally involved in this alleged constitutional deprivation.
While at Stateville, Augusta was in the I-Unit for approximately two weeks.
claims that the cell he was housed in was unsanitary.
Id.
He
Id. Specifically, Augusta alleges that the
toilet was stained with urine and feces and “employees” denied him cleaning supplies. Id.
Augusta also complains about Defendant Rolling, a Correctional Officer at Stateville.
According to the Second Amended Complaint, Augusta asked Rolling for an ink pen so he could
write a grievance regarding Rolling’s behavior, but Rolling refused his request for a pen.
Id.
Augusta asserts that this refusal violated his rights and interfered with his ability to submit a
grievance.
Id.
He also claims that Pfister is subject to liability in connection with this incident
4
for establishing a policy that prohibits new inmates from receiving ink pens. Id.
Augusta also alleges that he and other inmates were only allowed to shower once a week,
in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.
(Doc. 19, p. 13).
Augusta identifies Pfister and his employees.
Id.
In connection with this claim,
However, once again, he fails to explain how
Pfister (or any specific employee) was personally responsible for this alleged violation.
DISCUSSION
The Court must first address a preliminary matter.
In the First Amended Complaint,
Augusta named several groups of individuals as defendants, including Employees of Vandalia
Correctional Center, Employees of IDOC, and Employees of Stateville Correctional Center.
In
reviewing the First Amended Complaint, the Court explained that these groups of individuals are
not appropriate defendants and dismissed them from the action with prejudice.
Although Augusta has not attempted to name these groups of individuals as defendants in
the Second Amended Complaint, he often directs allegations against unspecified groups of
people (e.g., Vandalia employees, Stateville employees, Waggoner’s employees).
allegations are insufficient.
Such
As the Court has previously explained, Augusta must identify a
particular individual (not block groups of individuals) who allegedly deprived him of his
constitutional rights.
Plaintiffs are required to associate specific defendants with specific claims, so that
defendants are put on notice of the claims brought against them and so they can properly answer
the complaint. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). Where a plaintiff has
not included a specific defendant in his statement of the claim, the defendant cannot be said to be
adequately put on notice of which claims in the complaint, if any, are directed against him. See
5
Collins v. Kibort, 143 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1998). 1
Accordingly, any claims directed at
groups of individuals, such as Vandalia employees or Stateville employees, fail to state a claim
and are dismissed without prejudice.
Turning now to the threshold review, based on the allegations of the Second Amended
Complaint, the Court finds it convenient to divide the pro se action into the following Counts.
The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless
otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court.
constitute an opinion regarding their merit.
The designation of these counts does not
Any other claim that is mentioned in the Second
Amended Complaint but not addressed in this Order is dismissed without prejudice as
inadequately pled under the Twombly pleading standard.
Vandalia – Claims Directed Against Baldwin and Waggoner
Count 1 –
Eighth Amendment claim against Baldwin and Waggoner for subjecting
Augusta to unconstitutional conditions of confinement, including an
unsanitary and bug infested mattress, cold cell temperatures, inadequate
cleaning supplies, unsanitary cafeteria conditions, and broken water
fountains/inadequate cold drinking water.
Count 2 –
Eighth Amendment claim against Baldwin and Waggoner for exhibiting
deliberate indifference to the serious risk that Augusta could contract a
disease from being housed in close quarters with inmates who suffered
from scabies.
Count 3 –
Eighth Amendment claim against Baldwin and Waggoner for exhibiting
deliberate indifference to the serious risk that Augusta could be harmed
from being housed in a facility that allows inmates to possess razors and
lacks security cameras.
Count 4 –
Eighth Amendment claim against Waggoner for allowing prison staff to
strip search Augusta, in front of other inmates, on two occasions.
Count 5 –
Fourteenth
grievances.
Amendment
claim
1
against
Waggoner
for
mishandling
Group defendants also create problems with service of process. See Jenkins v. Wisconsin Res. Ctr., No. 09-CV323-BBC, 2009 WL 1797849, at *1 (W.D. Wis. June 24, 2009) (a group of people cannot be sued; each defendant
must be an individual or legal entity that may accept service of a complaint) (citing FED.R.CIV.P. 4(e)-(j)).
6
Vandalia – Claims Directed Against Mahaffey and Berg
Count 6 –
Eighth Amendment claim against Mahaffey and Berg for denying Augusta
meals on unspecified occasions.
Vandalia – Claims Directed Against Schwagi
Count 7 –
First and/or Fourteenth Amendment claim against Schwagi for opening
Augusta’s legal mail outside of his presence.
Stateville – Claims Directed Against Pfister and Rolling
Count 8 –
Eighth Amendment claim against Pfister for denying Augusta
opportunity to leave his cell for one hour per day.
the
Count 9 –
Eighth Amendment claim against Pfister for leaving Augusta in an
unsanitary cell in the I-Unit for approximately two weeks.
Count 10 –
Fourteenth Amendment claim against Pfister and Rolling for denying
Augusta access to a pen, interfering with his ability to file grievances.
Count 11 –
Eighth Amendment claim against Pfister for only allowing Augusta to
shower once a week.
IMPROPER JOINDER AND SEVERANCE
The Complaint may be subject to severance by this Court. The Court retains authority to
sever unrelated claims against different defendants into one or more additional lawsuits for
which the plaintiff will be assessed a filing fee. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.
2007).
In George, the Seventh Circuit emphasized that the practice of severance is important,
“not only to prevent the sort of morass” produced by multi-claim, multi-defendant suits “but also
to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Id.
The Seventh Circuit strongly encourages district courts to use severance when faced with an
omnibus or scattershot complaint, Owens v. Evans, -- F.3d --, 2017 WL 6728884, *1 (7th Cir.
Dec. 28, 2017), and discourages courts from allowing a prisoner “to flout the rules for joining
7
claims and defendants, see FED. R. CIV. P. 18, 20, or to circumvent the Prison Litigation Reform
Act's fee requirements by combining multiple lawsuits into a single complaint.”
Godinez, 860 F.3d 434, 436 (7th Cir. 2017).
Owens v.
In a misjoinder situation, severance may occur
before preliminary review, allowing the district court to create multiple suits, which can then be
separately screened.
Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir.
2012).
Augusta has asserted four distinct sets of claims in the Second Amended Complaint: (1)
Vandalia claims directed against Baldwin and Waggoner (Counts 1 through 5); (2) Vandalia
claims directed against Mahaffey and Berg (Count 6); (3) Vandalia claims directed against
Schwagi (Count 7); and (4) Stateville claims directed against Pfister and Rolling (Counts 8-11).
These four sets of claims are not properly joined under Rules 18 and 20 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18, 20; Owens v. Evans, -- F.3d --, 2017 WL 6728884, *1
(7th Cir. Dec. 28, 2017). The claims are not transactionally related, involve different defendants
and do not belong together in a single action. 2
Accordingly, the Court exercises its authority
under Rule 21 and severs the improperly joined claims.
Specifically, the Court will sever the
Vandalia claims directed against Mahaffey and Berg (Count 6),
the Vandalia claims directed
against Schwagi (Count 7) and the Stateville claims directed against Pfister and Rolling (Counts
8-11) into three separate actions.
These three separate actions will have newly assigned case
2
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 does not allow Plaintiff to include separate claims against different defendants
or sets of defendants in the same lawsuit. The rule prohibits a plaintiff from joining many defendants in a single
action unless the plaintiff asserts at least one claim for relief against each defendant that arises out of the same
transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences and presents questions of law or fact common to
all. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.2007). Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18 allows a party
to join unrelated claims against defendants in a suit, this rule applies only after the plaintiff has satisfied Rule 20’s
requirements for joinder of parties. Intercon Research Assn., Ltd. v. Dresser Ind., Inc., 696 F.2d 53, 57 (7th
Cir.1983) (quoting 7 Charles Alan Wright, Federal Practice & Procedure). This means that the core set of allowable
defendants must be determined under Rule 20 before a plaintiff may join additional unrelated claims against one or
more of those defendants under Rule 18.
8
numbers and shall be assessed filing fees.
The severed cases shall undergo preliminary review
pursuant to § 1915A after the new case numbers and judge assignments have been made.
The Vandalia claims directed against Baldwin and Waggoner (Counts 1 through 5),
which appear at least tenuously to be appropriately joined under Rules 20 and 18, shall remain in
this action.
These Counts shall receive preliminary review in a separate order, filed
contemporaneously herewith.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS FOR RELIEF
The allegations in the Second Amended Complaint include two requests directed at the
Court.
First, Augusta asks the Court to order certain discovery with respect to his Stateville
claims (Counts 8 -11). (Doc. 19, pp. 12-13). Such a request is premature, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 34,
37, and it is therefore DENIED without prejudice.
A schedule regarding discovery shall be
established by the U.S. Magistrate Judge, in due course, if Augusta’s Stateville claims survive
preliminary review under § 1915A.
Second, Augusta asks the Court to treat exhibits (grievances pertaining to the lack of cold
drinking water and a witness affidavit) attached to the First Amended Complaint as being part of
Augusta’s Second Amended Complaint.
(Doc. 19, p. 14).
Augusta claims that he lost the
exhibits and was unable to file them with the Second Amended Complaint.
DENIED.
This request is
As the Court has previously explained, it will not accept piecemeal amendments.
This request appears to relate to Augusta’s claims in Counts 1-5, which will undergo preliminary
review in a separate order. The Court will further address this request in that order.
DISPOSITION
Severance
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that COUNT 6 (Vandalia claims directed against
9
Mahaffey and Berg) is SEVERED into a new case against C/O MAHAFFEY and C/O BERG.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that COUNT 7 (Vandalia claims directed against
Schwagi) is SEVERED into a new case against ANGELA SCHWAGI.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that COUNTS 8 through 11 (Stateville claims directed
against Pfister and Rolling) are SEVERED into a new case against RANDY PFISTER and
C/O ROLLING.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the only claims remaining in this action, are
COUNTS 1 through 5 (Vandalia Claims directed against Baldwin and Waggoner).
The Clerk
of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate Defendants C/O MAHAFFEY, C/O BERG,
ANGELA SCHWAGI, RANDY PFISTER, and C/O ROLLING as parties to this action.
Newly Severed Cases
The claims in the newly severed cases shall be subject to screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A after the new case number and judge assignment is made. In the new case, the Clerk is
DIRECTED to file the following documents:
•
•
•
This Memorandum and Order;
The Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 19); and
Augusta’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2)
Augusta will be responsible for an additional $350 filing fee in the newly severed
cases. 3 No service shall be ordered in the severed cases until the § 1915A review is completed.
Merits Review of Counts 1 -5
These
Counts
shall
receive
preliminary
review
in
a
separate
order,
filed
contemporaneously herewith.
3
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914, effective May 1, 2013, an additional $50.00 administrative fee is also to be assessed
in all civil actions, unless pauper status is granted.
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 10, 2018
s/ STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Court
11
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?