Nance v. Lillard et al
Filing
43
ORDER DENYING 40 Motion for Joinder filed by Charles Ford and 42 Motion for Joinder filed by Joseph C. Sklenka. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 1/27/2025. (atp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JIMMY LAWRENCE NANCE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THOMAS LILLARD,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 24-1632
ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:1
This matter comes before the Court on Motions for Joinder (Docs. 40 & 42) filed by the
non-parties Charles Ford and Joseph C. Sklenka. Plaintiff Jimmy Lawrence Nance, an inmate of
the Federal Bureau of Prisons who is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional
Institution—Greenville, brought this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights. (Doc. 1).
He specifically alleged that on October 14, 2023, the outside cell windows at FCI—Greenville
were “painted” to block all view of the outside world and direct sunlight, creating a tomb-like
atmosphere in the cell. (Doc. 1, p. 1-3). Nance alleged this action was authorized and ordered
by Warden Thomas Lillard and included approximately 120 cells, including his. (Id.). He
alleged that the lack of light is harmful to his mental stability because he becomes disoriented
when he is not able to distinguish between day and night.
1
This case has been assigned to the undersigned through the parties’ consent to conduct all proceedings, including
trial and entry of judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73. (Doc. 37).
Page 1 of 5
Following the preliminary review of the complaint, Nance was allowed to proceed on the
following two counts:
Count 2:
Eighth Amendment condition of confinement claim for injunctive
relief against Warden Thomas Lillard for painting the windows in
Nance’s cell, blocking all sunlight and view of the outside.
Count 4:
Fifth Amendment equal protection claim for injunctive relief against
Warden Thomas Lillard for painting the windows in Nance’s cell,
blocking all sunlight and view of the outside.
(Doc. 24).
Now before the Court are the Motions for Joinder (Docs. 40 & 42) filed by the non-parties
Charles Ford and Joseph C. Sklenka. This is Ford’s third and Sklenka’s second attempt to be
added as plaintiffs to this case. (See Docs. 17, 21 & 27). The Court denied their prior motions
for joinder, explaining that they should have been filed by Nance, as opposed to them. (Docs.
20, 25 & 32). The Court further directed the Clerk to send Ford and Sklenka blank Civil Rights
Complaint forms, explaining that if they wanted to proceed with their own claims, they would need
to file their own lawsuits. (Id.). Ford has now filed a letter along with a civil rights complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, in which he again asks the Court to add him as a plaintiff in this
action. (Doc. 40). He does not set forth any specific facts in his complaint but rather merely
states that he is similarly affected by the facility’s decision to paint the cell windows and that he
“adopt[s]” Nance’s complaint. (Id.). Likewise, Sklenka filed a civil rights complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, in which he asks that he be added as a plaintiff in this action. (Doc. 42 at 67). He does not set forth any specific facts other than merely stating that he “would adopt
[Nance’s] filed motion” because he also suffers loss of view to the outside world. (Id. at 6).
Under Rule 20, persons may be added in one action as plaintiffs if (a) “they assert any
right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same
Page 2 of 5
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences,” and (b) “any question of law or
fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.” FED. R. CIV. P. 20(a). However, as the
Court explained in its prior orders, motions for joinder must be filed by existing parties. See
Thompson v. Boggs, 33 F.3d 847, 858 n.10 (7th Cir.1994) (noting the lack of any precedent
granting a non-party's motion for joinder); Arrow v. Gambler's Supply Inc., 55 F.3d 407, 409 (8th
Cir. 1995) (holding that only existing parties may move to join additional parties). Here, Ford
and Sklenka are not parties in this action, and therefore, the Court will not add them as plaintiffs
to this case under Rule 20.
However, the Court needs to further review Ford’s and Sklenka’s letters and accompanying
complaints as an attempt to intervene in the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. Rule
24 recognizes two types of intervention: intervention as of right and permissive intervention. FED.
R. CIV. P. 24. A non-party may intervene as a matter of right if there is a federal law authorizing
intervention or if the moving party has an interest relating to the property or transaction at issue in
the litigation, and that interest may, as a practical matter, be impaired or impeded by the disposition
of the case without him. FED. R. CIV. P. 24(a); Driftless Area Land Conservancy v. Huebsch, 969
F.3d 742, 746 (7th Cir. 2020). Here, Ford and Sklenka have not asserted, and the Court is unaware
of, a statute that would authorize them to intervene in this case. Further, they have not established
any interest in this litigation that would be impaired or impeded by the disposition of this case
without them. Accordingly, Ford and Sklenka cannot intervene as a matter of right.
Permissive intervention, on the other hand, may be allowed where the proposed intervenor
is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute or has a claim or defense that shares
with the main action a common question of law or fact. FED. R. CIV. P. 24(b)(1). The decision
is left to the discretion of the Court, which must also consider “whether the intervention will unduly
Page 3 of 5
delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights.” FED. R. CIV. P. 24(b)(3). Rule
24 further requires that a motion to intervene state the grounds for intervention and be accompanied
by a pleading that sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought. FED. R. CIV. P.
24(c).
Here, neither Ford nor Sklenka have identified a federal statute giving them a conditional
right to intervene in this case. Looking at their complaints, they both merely allege that they are
affected by the cell-windows being painted and that they are denied direct sunlight and view that
is available to most of the population. They further state that they adopt Nance’s complaint.
However, their attempt to incorporate Nance’s complaint by reference does not comply with Rule
24, which requires that the pleading sets out the claim for which intervention is sought. Even
under the most liberal review of their complaints, the factual allegations therein are insufficient to
state a claim: neither Ford nor Sklenka state if they are currently incarcerated in Greenville; they
do not provide any information as to who ordered the cell windows to be painted and they do not
state if they have suffered any injury as a result of the cell windows being painted.
Even assuming that Ford and Sklenka had sufficiently stated a claim, the Court would still
not be inclined to allow them to intervene in this action as it would likely unduly delay the
adjudication of the original parties. Defendant Lillard already filed an answer and did not raise
the defense of exhaustion of administrative remedies. (Doc. 35). This case is proceeding with
discovery on the merits. (Doc. 38) Both Ford and Sklenka, however, state in their respective
complaints that they have not exhausted their administrative remedies prior to their attempt to
intervene in this case. (Doc. 40, p. 5; Doc. 42, p. 4). They aver that requiring them to exhaust
administrative remedies would be futile because Nance’s grievance on the same issue was denied.
(Id.). Assuming they were allowed to intervene, the Court anticipates that Defendant Lillard
Page 4 of 5
would raise the affirmative defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies, thus causing an
undue delay to Nance’s claim. Accordingly, the Court will not allow Ford and Sklenka to
intervene in this case. To the extent either of them wishes to proceed with his own claim, he will
need to file his own lawsuit and pay his own filing fee.
For the reasons set forth above, Ford’s Motion for Joinder (Doc. 40) and Sklenka’s Motion
for Joinder (Doc. 42) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 1/27/2025
s/
Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 5 of 5
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?