Jones, Adonis v. Haines, Tim et al

Filing 13

ORDER that plaintiff may have until July 8, 2015 to identify which claim to proceed with in this lawsuit. Plaintiff may have until July 15, 2015 to advise the court whether he wishes to pursue the other claims in separate lawsuits. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 6/18/2015. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

ADONIS JONES,
Plaintiff,

OPINION AND ORDER

v.
14-cv-642-wmc
WARDEN TIM HAINES, et al.,
Defendants.

Adonis Jones, an inmate at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility in Boscobel,
Wisconsin, has filed a proposed civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he
alleges constitutional violations against numerous defendants employed by the Wisconsin
Department of Corrections.

He has since filed a proposed “supplement” to that

complaint. (Dkt. #5). Since Jones has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis
and he has made an initial partial payment of the filing fee.

The next step would

normally be for the court to screen Jones’s complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
However, the court cannot yet conduct the required screening because Jones’s complaint
violates Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 20 prohibits litigants from bringing unrelated claims against different
defendants in a single action.

As explained in more detail below, Jones’s complaint

contains at least three unrelated claims against different defendants. Accordingly, Jones
must choose which lawsuit he wishes to pursue as Case No. 14-cv-642. Once Jones has
made his selection, the court will then screen this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The

other, unrelated claims will be dismissed without prejudice to bringing them at another
time provided the applicable statute of limitations has not expired.
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT1
I.

Parties.
Jones is confined at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility in Boscobel,

Wisconsin.

The defendants include the following individuals employed at that

institution during the relevant period: Warden Tim Haines; Security Director Jerome
Sweeney; Deputy Warden Hermanes; Officer Martin; Officer McDaniel; Captain
Flannery; Sergeant Overbo; Lieutenant Tom; Lieutenant Shannon-Sharpe; and Sergeant
Ritchner.
II.

Alleged Harassment and Abuse Involving Officer Martin
Defendant Officer Martin allegedly harassed and abused Jones on numerous

occasions, sometimes in the presence of and even assistance of other defendants. In
particular, Jones alleges that:


From October 2012 through January 2013, Martin used “aggressive grips”
on Jones’s arms during escorts, “played” with his food trays and yanked on
his clothing during pat-down searches.



In March 2013, Martin called Jones a “stupid nigger” and told him he
would “break [his] back.”



In May 2013, Martin moved Jones near another inmate so that the other
inmate could spit at Jones. Officer Esser was also present.

In addressing any pro se litigant’s complaint, the court must read the allegations generously.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972). For purposes of this order, the court assumes the
facts above based on the allegations in Jones’s complaint.
1

2





On April 17, 2013, Martin threatened Jones during an escort, saying “yeah,
you gone get yours just watch.” Martin and Officer McDaniels slammed
Jones against the door with “aggressive grips,” injuring his shoulder joint
and both wrists. The officers then cancelled Jones’s recreation time for that
day.



On July 28, 2013, Martin banged and kicked Jones’s cell, yelling for him to
wake up for medication distribution, even though Jones was not scheduled
to receive any medication that day.



On October 15, 2013, Martin used an “aggressive grip” on Jones during an
escort. Esser was also present. Jones asked Martin to loosen his grip, but
Martin refused.



On November 13, 2013, Martin and Esser arrived to escort Jones to a
medical appointment. Martin refused to tell Jones which nurse he would
be seeing and then claimed falsely that Jones was refusing to leave his cell.
Martin then handcuffed Jones so tightly that it cut off blood circulation to
his hands and caused him pain. Jones asked Martin and Esser five or six
times to loosen the handcuffs, but they refused. Jones’s wrists were cut and
swollen as a result.



In January 2014, Martin told Jones, “I got a gun and I know how to shoot,
we can’t fight in here I’ll lose my job.”



III.

On April 12, 2013, Martin sexually assaulted Jones during a pat-down
search by “intentionally rubbing up against [his] genitals twice.” Sergeant
Ritchner was also present.

On May 14, 2014, Martin opened the trap door to Jones’s cell and asked,
“How [is] my friend doing?” Jones responded that he was “about to sue
him.” Martin said “So?” After Jones commented that he had a release date
coming up, Martin stated, “Out of all the places to die you gone wanna [sic]
die at my place.”

Endorsement of Abuse and Failure to Protect Jones by Multiple Defendants
In light of this alleged conduct, Jones filed multiple requests with Warden Haines

and Security Director Sweeney, asking that Officer Martin not be permitted to pat search
or escort him. Jones also asked Sweeney to take him off a two-person escort restriction

3

so that Martin would not need to escort him. Haines and Sweeney denied all of those
requests.
Jones’s family has called Warden Haines, asking that Jones be transferred to
another unit.

Haines has never acknowledged Jones’s family or taken measures to

intervene on Jones’s behalf. Deputy Warden Hermanes told Jones’s family falsely that
Jones had not been sexually assaulted.
On January 21, 2014, defendant Captain Flannery conducted an investigation of
Jones’s complaint regarding the incident that occurred on November 13, 2013, when
Martin allegedly handcuffed Jones too tightly.

Flannery did not review video from

Jones’s cell or hallway cameras and did not examine Jones’s wrists for cuts and scars.
Flannery also did not interview Officer Esser, who was present during the incident. Esser
and Martin lied in their statements regarding the incident. As a result of Flannery’s
investigation, Jones was charged in a conduct report with lying about staff. Jones was
found guilty following a due process hearing before defendant Lieutenant ShannonSharp. He was punished with 30 days’ room confinement.
IV.

Alleged Harassment on November 27, 2013, by Defendants Officers
McDaniel, Sergeant Overbo and Lieutenant Tom
On November 27, 2013, during the 11:15 a.m. count, Jones was laying down in

his cell watching a movie when “for no valid reason at all,” Officer McDaniel allegedly
began “banging on the cell door with his keys dramatically, outrageously and repeatedly
while yelling [Jones’s] name.”

Lieutenant Tom and Sergeant Overbo then joined

McDaniel and began banging on his cell door and yelling at him. Lieutenant Tom then
4

threatened to get a taser and enter the cell if Jones did not get up and come to the cell
door. Jones then told the officers that he intended to file a complaint for harassment
without a valid reason. Allegedly for this, Jones received a conduct report and was given
additional security restrictions for 16 days.
On December 13, 2013, a due process hearing was held on Jones’s November 27
conduct report. Lieutenant Shannon-Sharp denied his request for witnesses and declined
to review the footage from Jones’s cell camera. After being found guilty, Jones received
120 days in disciplinary separation and a demotion in status.

Jones appealed, but

Warden Haines affirmed the decision.
V.

Alleged Assault on Jones on March 9, 2014, by Officers Finnel and Brown-

Lucas2
On March 9, 2014, Officer Finnell allegedly sexually assaulted Jones by touching
his genitals twice during a pat-down search outside the law library. On that same date,
Officer Brown-Lucas also is alleged to have improperly “caress[ed]” Jones’s body during a
pat-down search outside of his cell. Then, while escorting him to his cell from the law
library after Jones told them he was going to file a complaint for sexual assault, both
Finnell and Brown-Lucas allegedly physically assaulted him.

2

These allegations are contained in a motion for a temporary restraining order that Jones
filed in conjunction with his complaint. (Dkt. #5). The court denied that motion for failing
to meet the criteria for relief found in Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. (Dkt. # 11). Because pro se
pleadings are entitled to liberal construction, however, the court treats Jones’s motion as a
supplement to his complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d).

5

OPINION
Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 prohibits a plaintiff from asserting unrelated claims against
different defendants or sets of defendants in the same lawsuit.

Specifically, multiple

defendants may not be joined in a single action unless (1) the plaintiff asserts at least one
claim to relief against each defendant that arises out of the same transaction or
occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences; and (2) presents questions of law or
fact common to all.

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).

If the

requirements of Rule 20 are satisfied, then a plaintiff may join additional, unrelated
claims against the defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a).
Jones’s complaint violates Rule 20 because it includes multiple claims about
different events and different prison officials. Jones’s allegations relate to at least three
series of transactions that belong in at least three separate lawsuits consisting of the
following allegations and claims:
Lawsuit #1 for Abuse and Failure to Protect:


Officer Martin repeatedly harassed and abused him verbally, physically and
sexually;



Officer Esser and Officer McDaniels participated with Officer Martin in
abusing Jones or, at least, failed to protect Jones from abuse by Martin;



Warden Haines and Security Director Sweeney refused to separate Officer
Martin from Jones, transfer Jones to another institution, or otherwise
protect Jones from Martin’s abuse;



Deputy Warden Hermanes lied to Jones’s family about this abuse; and



Captain Flannery and Lieutenant Shannon-Sharp endorsed Officer
Martin’s abuse of Jones and violated Jones’s due process rights during an
investigation and hearing relating to Martin’s abuse.
6

Lawsuit #2 for November 27, 2013 Incident, Subsequent Conduct Report
and Due Process Hearing:


Officer McDaniel, Sergeant Overbo and Lieutenant Tom harassed Jones for
no reason, threatened him with a taser and then gave him a conduct report
unfairly;



Lieutenant Shannon-Sharp endorsed their behavior and violated Jones’s
due process rights at a hearing regarding the incident;



Warden Haines affirmed Jones’s punishment.

Lawsuit #3 for Sexual and Physical Assaults:


Officer Finnell and Officer Brown-Lucas sexually and physically assaulted
Jones on March 9, 2014.

Jones will have to choose which of these lawsuits he wants to pursue in this case.
The court will apply the initial, partial payment Jones has made to only that one. That
lawsuit will be the only lawsuit assigned to this case number.
Jones may also choose to pursue the other lawsuits as well, but must do so
separately, paying a separate filing fee for each lawsuit he chooses to pursue. In addition,
he may be subjected to a separate strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) for any lawsuit that is
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Once a prisoner
receives three strikes, he is not able to proceed in new lawsuits without first paying the
full filing fee, except in very narrow circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Alternatively, Jones may choose to dismiss the other lawsuits. If he chooses the
latter route, he will not owe an additional filing fee or face a strike for the lawsuits he
dismisses.

A lawsuit dismissed voluntarily would be dismissed without prejudice, so

7

Jones would be able to bring it at another time, so long as he files it before the statute of
limitations has run.
Jones should be aware that because it is not clear at this time which of his separate
lawsuits he will pursue, the court has not assessed the merits of the claims raised in any
of the lawsuits identified above.

Once Jones identifies the suit or suits he wants to

continue to litigate, the court will screen the complaint as required under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A. Because Jones faces filing fees and potential strikes for each lawsuit pursued, he
should consider carefully the merits and relative importance of each of his potential
lawsuits before choosing to proceed with respect to some or all of them.
If Jones disagrees with the way the court has grouped his claims or if he believes
the court has left out claims he intended to assert (or included claims he did not intend
to assert), Jones may raise those objections in his response, but he must still comply with
this order and choose which of the three lawsuits he wishes to pursue. If he fails to do so,
the court will dismiss all of his claims for his failure to prosecute the case.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Adonis Jones may have until July 8, 2015, to identify for the court
whether he wishes to proceed with Lawsuit #1, Lawsuit #2, OR Lawsuit #3
under the number assigned to this case. Plaintiff must pick one and only one
of these lawsuits to proceed under Case No. 14-cv-642-wmc.
2. Jones may have until July 15, 2015, to advise the court whether he wishes to
pursue either of the other lawsuits under separate case numbers. Any lawsuit
not specifically identified to proceed will be deemed voluntarily withdrawn.

8

3. For any lawsuit Jones wishes to pursue, he will owe a separate filing fee and
will be assessed an initial partial payment.
4. If Jones fails to respond to this order by July 8, 2015, the court will enter an
order dismissing the lawsuit as it presently exists without prejudice for his
failure to prosecute.
Entered this 18th day of June, 2015.

BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

9