The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge
This cause is before the court for merit review of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. The court is required by 28 U.S.C. §1915A to "screen" the plaintiff's second amended complaint, and through such process to identify and dismiss any legally insufficient claim, or the entire action if warranted. A claim is legally insufficient if it "(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. §1915A.
The pro se plaintiff filed his original complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§1983on April 1, 2010. The plaintiff named thirty defendants including the Governor of Illinois, Illinois Department of Corrections Officials and employees from Pontiac Correctional Center and Lawrence Correctional Center.
The court noted that there were several problems with the plaintiffs complaint including the fact that he could not combine claims against defendants from two different correctional centers in one complaint. See April 27, 2010 Merit Review Order. The plaintiff was advised that he should file claims against the Lawrence Correctional Center defendants in the Southern District of Illinois. The court advised the plaintiff that he could not bring unrelated claims against unrelated defendants in the same lawsuit. George v Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
The court also specifically advised the plaintiff that he had not provided the defendants with proper notice of his claims. "The plaintiff's complaint fails to state any specific events, times or places. In addition, the plaintiff does not state how each defendant is responsible for his claims." April 27, 2010 Merit Review Order, p. 2.
Finally, the plaintiff was admonished that he should not repeat claims he had already alleged in previous lawsuits. Id. The court reminded the plaintiff that he had one pending case alleging that many of the same named defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical conditions. Id.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's original complaint as a violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 18 and 20. April 27, 2010 Merit Review Order, p. 3. The plaintiff was given an opportunity to file an amended complaint which he filed on May 13, 2010.
On May 24, 2010, the court conducted a merit review of the plaintiff's first amended complaint and found that the plaintiff had "ignored most of the court's specific direction and admonitions." May 24, 2010 Merit Review Order, p.1. The plaintiff still listed defendants from both correctional centers, although it appeared in some cases as though he was trying to disguise this fact. Id. In addition, the plaintiff did not have a statement of his claims. He simply listed each defendant and then next to each name stated a general allegation such as "[k]new about allegations and refused to stop it." (Amended Comp, p. 6).
The court again dismissed the plaintiff's complaint as a violation of Federal Rules of Procedure 8, 18 and 20 and gave the plaintiff one last opportunity to file an amended complaint following the court's specific directions. May 24, 2010 Merit Review Order, p. 2. The court noted that it was particularly important for the plaintiff to clarify his claims since he had chosen to file so many lawsuits.Id.
The plaintiff's second amended complaint is now before the court and concerns events only at Pontiac Correctional Center. It also narrows the number of defendants to 11 individuals: Illinois Governor Patrick Quinn, Assistant Warden Michael Lemke, Assistant Warden Marvin Reed, Dr. Brown, Correctional Officer Mike Melvin, Records Officer Wayne Germain, Illinois Department of Corrections Director Michael Randle, Warden Guy Pierce, Correctional Officer Daniel Small, Correctional Officer Hastings and Correctional Officer Tinsley.
The plaintiff says from August 1, 2008 to May 25, 2010, he was in the Pontiac Correctional Center and was "sick w/ pain." The plaintiff says he suffers from many medical problems including high blood pressure, gout and headaches. The plaintiff says each of the named defendants refused him medical treatment. He also claims they threatened him that if he kept on complaining, they would write false disciplinary reports.
The plaintiff then says the defendants participate in the "below allegations" and provides a list of 23 offenses such as " 2) administrative misconduct, 3) alcohol abuse, 4) drugs, weed, speed, abuse, 5) malpractice abuse, 6) bias, 7) prejudice, 8) partiality..." This list clearly does not state a violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights and again, he has failed to provide any specific dates, times, locations or defendants. The court also notes the plaintiff has stated a similar if not identical list in Thompson v Randle, Case No. 10-1156; Thompson v Taller, Case No. 10-1162; and Thompson v Reed, 10-1182.
The plaintiff has also failed to articulate how his claim concerning lack of medical care is any different than the previous case he filed in this court claiming that six of these same defendants were deliberately indifferent to his various medical conditions.*fn1 See Thompson v Quinn, Case No. 10-1065. In fact, this plaintiff has filed the same claim against the same basic defendants in at least three lawsuits in three different courts. (See Thompson v Quinn, Case No. 10-1051 and Thompson v Quinn, Case No. 10-1065 in the Central District of Illinois; Thompson v Quinn, Case No. 10-1141in the Northern District of Illinois; and Thompson v Quinn, Case No. 10-217in the Southern District of Illinois.)
The lawsuit the plaintiff filed in the Southern District of Illinois was transferred to the Central District of Illinois and reopened as Thompson v Quinn, Case No. 10-1101. The court then noted that the plaintiff's act of filing the same lawsuit in different courts was frivolous and a waste of the court's resources. Thompson v Quinn, Case No. 10-1101, April 27, ...