Miles v. Mitchell et al
ORDER DISMISSING without prejudice 1 Complaint filed by Billy Miles, DENYING 3 MOTION for Recruitment of Counsel filed by Billy Miles. Amended Pleadings due by 12/13/2023. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 11/15/2023. (anp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case No. 23-cv-3563-NJR
DAVID W. MITCHELL, WEXFORD
HEALTH CARE NURSES, S. BROWN,
C. HALE, ADEWALE KUFORIJI, and
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff Billy Miles, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”)
who is currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, brings this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights while at Pinckneyville
Correctional Center (“Pinckneyville”). 1 The case is before the Court for preliminary
review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, the Court
This Complaint is one of 13 that the Court recently received and filed over the course of two
days. For ease of comprehension as the Court manages these cases, and any potential future cases,
it will assign the cases basic numeral identifiers as follows: Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23cv-3562-NJR (“Miles 1”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3563-NJR (“Miles 2”), Miles v.
Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3564-NJR (“Miles 3”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-2365NJR (“Miles 4”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-2366-NJR (“Miles 5”), Miles v. Mitchell, et
al., Case No. 23-cv-3567-NJR (“Miles 6”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3568-NJR (“Miles
7”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3569-NJR (“Miles 8”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No.
23-cv-3570-NJR (“Miles 9”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3571-NJR (“Miles 10”), Miles v.
Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3572-NJR (“Miles 11”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3579NJR (“Miles 12”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3580-NJR (“Miles 13”).
is required to screen prisoner complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of a 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 must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C.
In his Complaint, Miles makes the following allegations: On January 10, 2022,
Miles handed the “med lady” medication refill requests for two prescription creams
including triamcinolone acetonide cream and an antifungal cream (Doc. 1, p. 6). Despite
writing Wexford Healthcare several times, the prescription creams have not been refilled.
Miles alleges the nurses have refused to provide him medical aid.
Miles also alleges, as he does in all of his recently filed cases, that IDOC has
mandated tactical training for all staff members (Doc. 1, p. 6). Miles contends that IDOC’s
training has been weaponized against him and that he will be met with aggression (Id.).
Unfortunately, he fails to further explain how the tactical training has been used against
him or how the allegations relate to his claims regarding his access to medications.
Simply put, Miles fails to allege a viable claim for deliberate indifference in his
medical treatment. “A prisoner’s claim for deliberate indifference must establish (1) an
objectively serious medical condition; and (2) an official’s deliberate indifference to that
condition.” Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d 859, 865 (7th Cir. 2012). Although he alleges that he
has been denied access to various prescription creams, he fails to tie his allegations to a
specific defendant. He also fails to allege that the creams were needed to treat a serious
medical condition. This is not enough to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8. See also DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d 624, 627 (7th Cir. 1990) (A successful
Complaint generally alleges “the who, what, when, where, and how….”).
Miles alleges that “nurses” failed to refill his prescriptions and that he wrote letters
to Wexford. As to the unknown nurses, Miles fails to point to any specific nurse other
than the “med lady” he handed his refills to, and he fails to allege that the “med lady”
refused to fill his prescriptions. As to the generic “nurses,” Miles may certainly allege
claims against identified John Does (i.e., John Doe #1, John Doe #2), but he refers to a
generic group of nurses. These claims are too generic to survive threshold review because
he does not describe the nurses he spoke to, nor does he state the number of them. As to
Wexford, the corporation will only be liable for an unconstitutional policy or practice.
Shields v. Ill. Dep’t of Corr., 746 F.3d 782, 789 (7th Cir. 2014) (“Such a private corporation
cannot be held liable under [Section] 1983 unless the constitutional violation was caused
by an unconstitutional policy or custom of the corporation itself.”). Miles fails to point to
any such policy or practice that caused his medications to go unfilled. To the extent he
identifies the warden and IDOC director as defendants, these officials cannot be held
liable simply as high-ranking officials who oversee employees because supervisory
liability does not apply to actions under Section 1983. See Kinslow v. Pullara, 538 F.3d 687,
692 (7th Cir. 2008). Nor can those individuals who simply responded to grievances be
liable for his deliberate indifference claims.
Simultaneously with his current pleading, Miles filed several other cases about
various aspects of his incarceration at Pinckneyville. He raises claims regarding damage
to his property (Miles 1), medical care he received (Miles 2, Miles 7, Miles 8, Miles 10, and
Miles 11), and access to property and other items (Miles 3, Miles 4, Miles 5, Miles 6, Miles
9, Miles 12, and Miles 13). In addition to his individual allegations, each Complaint also
includes allegations regarding a mandate by IDOC and Pinckneyville requiring staff to
obtain tactical training. Miles also alleges that grievance officials have edited his
grievances. He fails, however, to allege that these actions violated his constitutional rights
or caused him any harm. Although he alleges that staff can use tactical training against
him and he will be “met with aggression,” there are no allegations to suggest that any
defendant has used excessive force against him. Nor has he indicated how any defendant
edited his grievance or how those “edits” violated his rights. The mere mishandling or
denial of a grievance does not state a claim. Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir.
2011) (“[T]he alleged mishandling of [a prisoner’s] grievance by persons who otherwise
did not cause or participate in the underlying conduct states no claim.”); George v. Smith,
507 F.3d 605, 609-10 (7th Cir. 2007).
Further, these potential claims appear to be unrelated to the claims in his current
lawsuit. To the extent he believes his rights have been violated by the implementation of
tactical training or issues with his grievances, he would have to file a new case about
these distinct allegations. Miles also would be subject to an additional filing fee and a
possible “strike” should the claims be deemed frivolous or fail to state a claim. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
As to his motion for counsel (Doc. 3), Miles indicates that he has some education
but does not specify why he believes counsel is necessary in this case. He states that he
does not speak, write, or read English very well, but he fails to indicate the level of his
language or writing abilities. Nonetheless, his filings have been easy to read and
Miles also does not indicate whether he tried to obtain counsel on his own. Under
the portion of the form motion directing Miles to declare whether he has contacted any
attorneys for representation he simply wrote “N/A”. (Id. at p. 1). Thus, it is not clear
whether Miles has made any attempt to contact counsel or if he has been prevented from
doing so by staff. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007) (The two-fold inquiry
asks (1) has the indigent plaintiff made a reasonable effort to obtain counsel or been
effectively precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty of the case, does the
plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself.). Miles’s motion for counsel is, therefore,
DENIED. Should Miles choose to move for recruitment of counsel in the future, the Court
DIRECTS him to (1) contact at least three attorneys regarding representation in this case
prior to filing another motion, (2) include in the motion the name and addresses of at least
three attorneys he has contacted, and (3) if available, attach the letters from the attorneys
who declined representation. Miles should also include in his motion a specific statement
as to why he believes recruitment of counsel is necessary in this case.
For the reasons stated above, the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Miles will have an opportunity to file a First Amended Complaint if he wishes to pursue
his claims. If he chooses to do so, Miles must comply with the instructions and deadlines
set forth below.
Miles is GRANTED leave to file a “First Amended Complaint” on or before
December 13, 2023. Should he fail to file his First Amended Complaint within the allotted
time or consistent with the instructions set forth in this Order, the entire case shall be
dismissed 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).
Such a dismissal could count as one of Miles’s three allotted “strikes” under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). As mentioned above, Miles has filed several other cases in this Court, including
several cases with seemingly related allegations (see, for example, Miles 5, Miles 9, Miles
13). Should those cases be dismissed as frivolous, they could be counted towards his
allotted “strikes” and prevent him from filing future cases without prepayment of fees.2
As such, the Court will allow Miles to either file a First Amended Complaint or seek to
dismiss his original Complaint voluntarily by the stated deadline. Continuing to file
28 U.S.C. §1915(g) provides that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a
judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior
occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of
the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury.”
excessive, frivolous cases also could result in sanctions and/or a filing ban. See Warren v.
United States, Case No. 16-cv-00390-SMY, 2016 WL 2643345, at *2 (S.D. Ill. May 10, 2016)
(warning of possible sanctions for frivolous and vexatious litigation); Grant v. U.S. Dep’t
of Def., Case No. 19-cv-979-NJR, 2019 WL 6728878, at * 2 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 11, 2019) (warning
that continued frivolous filings could result in a ban).
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 the original
Complaint. Thus, if Miles chooses to file an amended pleading, the First Amended
Complaint must stand on its own, without reference to any previous pleading, and Miles
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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. To aid Miles in drafting his First Amended Complaint, the Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to send Miles a Section 1983 Complaint form.
Miles is further ADVISED that his obligation to pay the filing fee for this action
was incurred at the time the action was filed, thus the filing fee remains due and payable,
regardless of whether he 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). If Miles chooses to dismiss
his case voluntarily, the Court will not collect the remaining filing fee.
Finally, Miles 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 seven 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).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 15, 2023
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge
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?