United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
A. BAKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cause is before the Court for consideration of
Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint 
and motion to clarify his proposed amended complaint. 
Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, filed an original complaint
which was 154 pages complete with exhibits. Plaintiff listed
more than 200 Defendants including Illinois Department of
Corrections Officials, doctors, officers, Administrative
Review Board Members, judges and states attorneys. (Comp., p.
1-2, 13-23). While it is was difficult to interpret
Plaintiff's complaint, he mentioned incidents as far back
as August of 1993 and various allegations relating to
disciplinary tickets, disciplinary hearings, medical care,
library time, access to the courts and a variety of other
Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint as a violation of
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 18 and 20. See
December 3, 2015 Merit Review Order. The Court explained to
the Plaintiff that any claims pursuant to §1983 were
subject to a two year statute of limitations period.
See December 3, 2015 Merit Review Order, p. 1-2
citing Wilson v Giesen, 956 F.2d 738, 740 (7th Cir.
1992); Farrell v. McDonough, 966 F.2d 279, 280-82
(7th Cir. 1992). In addition, Plaintiff was advised he could
not combine unrelated claims against different defendants in
one lawsuit. See December 3, 2015 Merit Review
Order, p. 2. Plaintiff was further admonished it was not
enough to simply list all intended Defendants without
explaining how each was involved in his claims. See
December 3, 2015 Merit Review Order, p. 2.
the Plaintiff was given additional time to file an amended
complaint clarifying his claims and specific instructions to
The amended complaint must stand complete on its own and must
not make reference to the original complaint. Plaintiff must
provide a BRIEF statement of his claims in numbered
paragraphs. For each claim, the Plaintiff must state which
specific defendant was involved, what specifically the
defendant did and the date of the incident or a very specific
time frame such as the week, month and year. Plaintiff must
not include exhibits, but should instead state his claims in
the body of his complaint. December 3, 2015 Merit Review
Order, p. 2-3.
was directed to file his proposed amended complaint on or
before December 24, 2015. However, after the deadline,
Plaintiff filed a motion asking for an additional 90 to 120
days to file his amended complaint.  The Court noted
Plaintiff was an experienced litigator. See Wilkerson v
Haabs, Case No. 10-1067; Wilkerson v Peters,
Case No. 94-1008; Wilkerson v Peters, Case #94-1019;
Wilkerson v Peters, Case No. 95-1278; Wilkerson
v Mote, Case No. 03-1217 in the Central District of
Illinois. Therefore, the Court found Plaintiff's request
for an additional three to four months was excessive. The
Court instead allowed Plaintiff an additional 21 days.
Plaintiff was again admonished if he did not file an amended
complaint in compliance with the Court's order on or
before March 11, 2016, his case would be dismissed.
See February 18, 2016 Text Order.
then filed a letter with the Court asking for an extension of
time.  Plaintiff claimed he was not receiving adequate
law library time. However, Plaintiff did not say why he
needed additional time in the law library. Plaintiff was
reminded he should provide only a short and plain statement
of his claims in compliance with the Court's December 3,
2015 order. The Court noted it would allow Plaintiff
“one FINAL extension of time, ” and if he did not
file his proposed amended complaint on or before April 28,
2016, his case would be dismissed. April 14, 2016 Text Order.
Plaintiff was further admonished he must not send letters to
the Court, but could file motions. The Court noted it would
strike any further letters. See April 14, 2016 Text
days later, Plaintiff filed a letter which was stricken by
the Court. . Plaintiff was again reminded he must file
motions specifically stating what relief he was
requesting. See April 20, 2016 Text Order.
responded with another motion for additional time to comply
with the Court's order.  This time Plaintiff claimed
he could not comply with the deadline due to eye problems.
The Court allowed 14 additional days, but noted Plaintiff had
been allowed four months to comply with the Court's
December 3, 2015 order. Therefore, if Plaintiff failed to
file his proposed complaint on or before May 11, 2016, his
case would be dismissed. See April 27, 2016 Text
after the deadline, Plaintiff filed a motion for an
enlargement of time and motion for appointment of
counsel. Plaintiff continued to complain of eye problems,
but the Court noted he had demonstrated an ability to file
multiple motions. Plaintiff was admonished if he did not file
his complaint on or before May 24, 2016, his case would be
dismissed. See May 13, 2016 Text Order.
after the deadline, Plaintiff filed another motion for
additional time  followed by a motion for production of
documents. Plaintiff stated he did not receive the
Court's last order until one day before the May 24, 2016
deadline, and therefore he was unable to comply. The Court
again noted Plaintiff was an experienced litigator who was
allowed months to comply with the Court's order.
“The Plaintiff MUST file his amended complaint on or
before June 21, 2016 or his case WILL be dismissed with
prejudice. A copy of this order is to be faxed to the
litigation coordinator at Plaintiff's facility to insure
receipt by the Plaitniff.” June 7, 2016 Text Order.
Plaintiff's motion for production of documents was denied
as Plaintiff was not in the discovery phase of his
has now filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint. 
Six days later, Plaintiff filed a motion to clarify his
pleading. The motion for leave to amend is granted
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.  However,
Plaintiff's motion to clarify is denied.  The Court
does not allow piecemeal amendments in order to avoid
confusion over claims and Defendants. In addition,
Plaintiff's amended complaint is a 79 page, single ...