Williams v. Neal et al

Filing 6

OPINION AND ORDER STRIKING 1 Pro Se Complaint filed by Jerome Williams; DIRECTING the Clerk to place this cause number on a blank Prisoner Complaint form and send it to Pla; DIRECTING the Clerk to send Pla five blank prisoner complaint packets; GRA NTING Pla until 10/22/2015 to file one amended complaint in this case which contains only related claims; CAUTIONING Pla that if he does not respond by that ddl, this case will be closed without further notice. Signed by Judge William C Lee on 9/24/2015. (cc: Pla with forms)(lns)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
JEROME WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
RON NEAL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
) CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-428 WL
)
)
)
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER

Jerome Williams, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against eight defendants alleging that they retaliated against him at the Indiana State Prison. “A
document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully
pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the merits of a prisoner
complaint.
Williams alleges that the defendants conspired against him, but “conspiracy is not an
independent basis of liability in § 1983 actions.” Smith v. Gomez, 550 F.3d 613 (7th Cir. 2008).
“Section 1983 does not . . . punish conspiracy; an actual denial of a civil right is necessary before
a cause of action arises.” Goldschmidt v. Patchett, 686 F.2d 582, 585 (7th Cir. 1982). “A
plaintiff bringing a civil rights action must prove that the defendant personally participated in or
caused the unconstitutional actions.” Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763, 776 (7th Cir. 2008).
“[P]ublic employees are responsible for their own misdeeds but not for anyone else’s.” Burks v.
Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 596 (7th Cir. 2009).

Williams alleges that Superintendent Ron Neal “sanctioned a hail of retaliation . . ..” DE
1 at 11. However, “in considering the plaintiff’s factual allegations, courts should not accept as
adequate abstract recitations of the elements of a cause of action or conclusory legal statements.”
Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009). A complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter to “state a claim that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Legal
conclusions can provide a complaint’s framework, but unless well-pleaded factual allegations
move the claims from conceivable to plausible, they are insufficient to state a claim. Id. at 680.
“[C]ourts are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986) (quotation marks
omitted). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires
more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in
fact).” Id. (quotation marks, citations and footnote omitted). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do
not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has
alleged—but it has not shown—that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Iqbal at 679 (quotation
marks and brackets omitted). Thus, “a plaintiff must do better than putting a few words on paper
that, in the hands of an imaginative reader, might suggest that something has happened to her
that might be redressed by the law.” Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir.

2

2010) (emphasis in original). Here, Williams has not presented any factual basis for his
speculation that Superintendent Ron Neal sanctioned the allegedly retaliatory acts of the other
defendants. Consequently, this complaint contains several unrelated claims.
Though it is possible to join more than one claim and more than one defendant in a single
lawsuit, “[u]nrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits . . ..” George v.
Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Williams alleges that all eight defendants retaliated
against him for the same reason, but that alone is not sufficient to make these related claims.
Williams alleges that Superintendent Ron Neal and Executive Assistant Howard Morton denied
him the right to have good time credits restored. He alleges that Lt. Williams ordered him to stay
out of the law library and forced him to walk around the prison in shackles. He alleges that Law
Library Supervisor Besse Leonard ordered another inmate to attack him. He alleges that Captain
Yancey and Lt. Huff took his typewriter and placed him on phone and commissary restrictions.
He alleges that Case Manager Mayes refused to process his grievance about having been placed
in a bubble cell. Finally he alleges that Disciplinary Hearing Officer Taylor refused to view
video evidence or consider his self-defense arguments during his disciplinary hearing. Even if
each of these six disparate acts were motivated by a desire to retaliate against Williams for
seeking to publish a book and/or for having filed a lawsuit because he was denied the ability to
do so, they are nevertheless unrelated to each other because each was a discrete action not
dependant on any of the others. Thus, this complaint will be stricken and Williams will be
permitted to file a single amended complaint under this cause number asserting only related
claims. The clerk will also send him five additional prisoner complaint packets so that he can
separately file the unrelated claims, if he wishes to do so.

3

For these reasons, the court: (1) STRIKES the complaint (DE 1); (2) DIRECTS the
clerk to place this cause number on a blank Prisoner Complaint 42 U.S.C. § 1983 form and send
it to Jerome Williams; (3) DIRECTS the clerk to send Jerome Williams five blank prisoner
complaint packets; (4) GRANTS Jerome Williams until October 22, 2015, to file one amended
complaint in this case which contains only related claims; and (5) CAUTIONS Jerome Williams
that if he does not respond by that deadline, this case will be closed without further notice.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: September 24, 2015
s/William C. Lee
William C. Lee, Judge
United States District Court

4