v. Williams et al

Filing 11

OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for plaintiff's failure to comply with this Court's Order of November 3 2014. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3). Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 2/10/15. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
CORNELIUS WILLIAMS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GEORGE A. LOMBARDI, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:14CV105 ACL

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court sua sponte. On November 3, 2014, plaintiff
was ordered to file an amended complaint within thirty days, in accordance with the
specific instructions set forth in the Order [Doc. #5]. In addition, the Court took
judicial notice of an earlier, “nearly identical,” lawsuit plaintiff had brought, see
Williams v. Lombardi, No. 1:13-CV-50-LMB (E.D. Mo.), and warned plaintiff that
his failure to comply with the Order would result in the dismissal of this action,
without prejudice and without further notice to him. Plaintiff filed motions for
reconsideration and for an extension of time to file an amended complaint. On
November 20, 2014, this Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and
granted him additional time, to January 5, 2015, to file the amended complaint [Doc.
#8]. In so doing, the Court noted, “Thus, with his filing of essentially the same
complaint in this action, and the instant motions for reconsideration and extension to

file an amended complaint, plaintiff is tracking the course of Case
1:13CV050LMB.”
Although plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 5, 2015 [Doc. #9],
he has failed to comply with this Court’s specific instructions, as set forth in the
November 3, 2014 Memorandum and Order, and his time for doing so has now
expired. More specifically, the Court explained, in detail, the proper standard for
joining multiple defendants and multiple claims in a single action, as well as the
rules governing pleading. In addition, the Court stated, “Based on the applicable
legal standard, the Court again rejects the notion that all of the allegations in
plaintiff’s complaint arise from the same occurrence.”
Nevertheless, in his twenty-six-page amended complaint, plaintiff again
names as defendants George Lombardi, Ian Wallace, Omen Clark, Richard Gaines,
Alex Clinton, Gregory Howard, Robert Strickland, Nathaniel Thomas, Paula
Phillips, Jessie Palmer, Jewelline Krammer, Michael Hakala, Corizon and/or
Correctional Medical Services, Jim Wells, Mr. Pig, and “Unknown-One.”
Moreover, plaintiff again asserts many of the same unrelated claims that were
advanced in his original complaint. For example, plaintiff alleges that almost five
years ago, on June 4, 2010, while being transported from a Medical Center in
Jefferson City, Missouri, he experienced an adverse reaction to a prescribed
2

medication but was falsely charged with “attempted escape” and was placed in
administrative segregation for a total of 431 days, where he was “vulnerable and
anonymous and [his] constitutional rights, including Americans with Disabilities
Act, due process, access to the court were viciously violated.” Plaintiff again
claims that the transportation unit failed to follow policy and procedure, which
placed him in a dangerous situation.

In addition, plaintiff asserts numerous

instances over the course of the next five years of defendants denying him proper
medical treatment, interfering with his legal and non-legal mail, failing to follow
prison rules and regulations, retaliating against him for filing grievances, conspiring
against him, interfering with the filing of lawsuits, using “subversive tactics of
manipulating policy and procedure on and prior to October 2, 2012,” and exposing
him to “deliberate indifference, sanitary violations, deprivation of ad-seg property
and ADA violations.” Last, plaintiff again includes allegations against members of
the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole for failing to grant him parole on several
occasions. Plaintiff requests declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. He asks
the Court to remove conduct violations from his file and to prohibit defendants
“from permitting any such reports to be placed in [his] files at any future time.”
After this is done, he asks that the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole “decide
whether [he] should be released on parole.”
3

In its Memorandum and Order of November 3, 2014 [Doc. #5], this Court
summarized plaintiff’s allegations, as set forth in the original complaint, and
specifically advised plaintiff that “[t]he separate claims bear little or no relationship
to each other, despite plaintiff’s repeated assertion that his allegations arise out of
one occurrence that took place on June 4, 2010.” The Court further informed
plaintiff that it “again rejects the notion that all of the allegations in plaintiff’s
complaint arise from the same occurrence.” Noting that plaintiff “previously filed
a nearly identical complaint in Case 1:13CV050LMB on March 19, 2013,” despite
having been informed of the proper standard for joining multiple defendants and
claims in a single action [Doc. #5], this Court allowed plaintiff the opportunity to file
an amended complaint and reminded him that he must comply with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, notably Rules 8, 10, 18, and 20, as well as the Court’s
Local Rules. Plaintiff was provided with five additional blank form complaints so
he could file separate actions relating to any defendants he wished to sue, in order to
comply with the federal joinder rules; however, he opted to file the amended
complaint now before the Court.
After comprehensively reviewing the amended complaint, the Court finds that
it is not in compliance with the Court’s instructions, and therefore, this action will be
dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In
4

litigation involving prisoners, "Unrelated claims against different defendants
belong in different suits, . . . [in part] to ensure that prisoners pay the required
filing fees - for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of
frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the
required fees." George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Judicial
resources cannot continue to be expended in a case where a plaintiff disregards the
Court’s repeated instructions on how to properly amend his complaint and argues
with the Court’s findings that his pleadings are not in conformance with the federal
joinder and pleading rules.
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED, without
prejudice, for plaintiff=s failure to comply with this Court=s Order of November 3
2014. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not
be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(a)(3).
Dated this 10th day of February, 2015
________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5