UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
November 5, 2007
ANTHONY L. FLETCHER, PLAINTIFF,
UNITED STATES MARSHAL DEATHRIDGE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge
This cause is before the court for case management and consideration of the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint [d/e 11]; motion for an emergency transfer [d/e 12]; and motion for legal materials. [d/e 13]
The plaintiff originally filed three lawsuits in the Central District of Illinois within one month and asked to proceed in forma pauperis in each case. See October 1, 2007 Court Order. The plaintiff had also accumulated three strikes and cannot proceed in forma pauperis unless he can demonstrate that he is in 'imminent danger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
The court conducted a merit review of the three complaints and found that two of the cases repeated the same claims. The third did not meet the imminent danger exception. See October 1, 2007 Court Order. Based on its review, the court dismissed two of the plaintiff's complaints and found that the sole surviving lawsuit had one surviving claim: that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical condition. Id.
The plaintiff has responded by filing a motion to amend his complaint. First, the plaintiff has not provided a proposed amended complaint with his motion and the court does not allow piecemeal amendments. The plaintiff says he wants to add defendants and claims, but does not provide any additional information. The plaintiff may not add claims that have been dismissed, claims that he has not exhausted his administrative remedies for or claims that do not meet the imminent danger exception.
Second, the plaintiff says the court misread one of his claims. The plaintiff says he was not alleging that the defendants did not check his blood pressure, he was alleging that they did not check his blood sugar levels. The plaintiff still failed to articulate that he was in imminent danger as a result. The motion to amend is denied. [d/e 11]
The plaintiff has also filed a motion asking the court to order an emergency transfer. The plaintiff says as a result of his lawsuit, he has been placed in a cold jail cell, pepper spray has been used against him and he has been denied copies of legal materials. [d/e 12]. The plaintiff does not provide any details about his accusations. It is not clear whether any of the named defendants were involved in his allegations. In addition, the plaintiff has not indicated when these events occurred or whether he has used the jail grievance procedure. The plaintiff cannot prevail on the court to exercise its equity powers to intervene in matters of jail administration that largely rest within the discretion of the officials who run the jail when he has yet to take full advantage of the resources those officials provide for addressing his concerns. See Farmer v. Brennan, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1984 (1994). The motion is denied. [d/e 12]
Lastly, the plaintiff has filed a motion asking the court to order the defendants to provide him with "meaningful access to the court." [d/e 13]. The defendants have not yet been served in this case and there are no pending motions. However, the plaintiff says he has not been provided enough law library time or books to adequate litigate his case. The plaintiff has provided no examples to support his general claim. The motion is denied. [d/e 13]
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1) The plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint is denied. [d/e 11]
2) The plaintiff's motion for an emergency transfer is denied. [d/e 12]
3) The plaintiff's motion for a court order allowing him legal material and law library time is denied. [d/e 13]
Entered this ___5th____ day of November, 2007.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.