United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
SHANE A. KITTERMAN, # B80577, Plaintiff,
DIRECTOR, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE United States District Judge.
matter is now before the Court for consideration of the Third
Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Shane Kitterman on
September 29, 2016. Like the original Complaint (Doc. 1),
Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint violates Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8. It also represents an egregious violation of this
Court's Order Dismissing Complaint (Doc. 17) that was
entered on March 4, 2016. Dismissal of the Third Amended
Complaint and this action are now warranted. See
FED. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 on January 6, 2016. He is an inmate who is currently
incarcerated at Big Muddy River Correctional Center
("Big Muddy") for repeatedly failing to register as
a sex offender. Plaintiff claims that his three convictions
resulted from the defendants' failure to remove his name
from the child sex offender registry a decade ago. In his
original Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff named the unknown
Illinois State Police Director, the Sex Offender Registration
Unit Supervisor (Tracie Newton) and the State's Attorney
(Brendan Kelly) claiming due process violations, negligence,
breach of contract, fraud and malicious prosecution among
other things. He requested monetary damages and injunctive
relief that includes removal of his name from the sex
Court could not screen Plaintiffs original Complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because it consisted of
approximately eight separate documents filed over the course
of five weeks. Document 1, entitled "Civil Rights
Complaint, " included a list of defendants and a list of
legal claims. The document set forth virtually no factual
allegations against the defendants. It did not comply with
the requirement that a Complaint must "actually
suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief, by
providing allegations that raise a right to relief above a
speculative level." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a),
(d)(1); Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526F.3d 1074, 1084
(7th Cir. 2008) (emphasis in original).
supplemented Document 1 with seven additional
documents. In each, he set forth different factual
allegations and legal theories against the defendants. These
documents appeared to represent multiple amendments to the
original Complaint. As a general rule, however, the Court
does not accept piecemeal amendments to a Complaint,
particularly not when a plaintiff submits seven of them
(see Doc. 17, pp. 2-3).
further complicate matters, Plaintiff also requested a blank
civil rights complaint form, habeas petition, and
"waiver application" three weeks after filing his
original Complaint (Doc. 7). This request suggested that
Plaintiff intended to prepare still more amendments to the
light of these issues, the Court dismissed the original
Complaint on March 4, 2016 (Doc. 17). The dismissal was
without prejudice, and Plaintiff was given an opportunity to
file a First Amended Complaint on or before April 8, 2016
(Doc. 17, p. 6). Plaintiff was strongly encouraged to use the
standard civil rights complaint form supplied by the Court
when preparing his First Amended Complaint. In addition, he
was given the following warnings and instructions:
The Court will not accept piecemeal amendments to the
complaint. For this reason, the amended pleading must stand
on its own, without reference to any previous pleading.
Plaintiff must re-file any exhibits he wishes the Court to
consider along with the first amended complaint.
Should Plaintiff decide to file an amended complaint, it is
strongly recommended that he use the forms designed for use
in this District for such actions. He should label the form,
"First Amended Complaint, " and he should use the
case number for this action. The first amended
complaint should set forth all of Plaintiff's claims
against the defendants in a single pleading. He
should refer to the constitutional or statutory ground(s) for
relief. Plaintiff should name the proper defendant(s). The
amended complaint shall present each claim in a separate
count, and each count shall specify, by name, each
defendant alleged to be liable under the count, as well as
the actions that each defendant took in violation of
Plaintiffs rights. Plaintiff should attempt to include the
facts of his case in chronological order, inserting each
defendant's name where necessary to identify the actors.
Plaintiff should refrain from filing unnecessary exhibits. He
should include only related claims in his new
complaint. Claims against different defendants that are found
to be unrelated to one another will be severed into new
cases, new case numbers will be assigned, and additional
filing fees will be assessed. The first amended complaint is
subject to review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
(id. at 6-7) (emphasis added). The Court warned
Plaintiff that his failure to file a First Amended Complaint
within the allotted time "or consistent with the
instructions set forth in this Order" would result in
dismissal of the action with prejudice (id. at 6)
(citing FED. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Ladien v. Astrachan,
128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Johnson v. Kamminga,
34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A).
response to the Order Dismissing Complaint, Plaintiff filed a
55-page First Amended Complaint (Doc. 18) on March 9, 2016.
He also filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings (Doc. 19) in which
Plaintiff indicated that he still needed to exhaust his
administrative remedies before proceeding with his claims.
Plaintiff asked the Court to "stay these proceedings
until such time as the exhaustion of State remedies" is
complete (Doc. 19, p. 1). The Court denied the motion after
explaining that the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a), requires a prisoner to exhaust all available
administrative remedies before filing suit under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (see Doc. 20).
then filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 21), in which he
requested dismissal of all claims against Brendan Kelly
because Plaintiff had not yet exhausted his administrative
remedies for these claims. However, Plaintiff asserted that
he did exhaust his administrative remedies for all other
claims. Before the Court ruled on that motion or screened the
First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend
Complaint (Doc. 22) on June 15, 2016, along with a proposed
Second Amended Complaint and Memorandum of Law totaling 53
pages. He then supplemented this proposed Second Amended
Complaint with a 4-page "lost" exhibit on June 17,
2016 and a 6-page exhibit that he inadvertently excluded from
his proposed Second Amended Complaint on June 20, 2016.
next filed a 19-page "Declaration" with a 24-page
exhibit on July 13, 2016 as well as a 10-page Motion to Issue
Summons and Injunction (Doc. 23) on July 19, 2016. Still not
satisfied, Plaintiff filed yet another Motion to Amend
Complaint (Doc. 27) on September 21, 2016 along with a
proposed Third Amended Complaint that totaled 59 pages. Just
eight days later on September 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a
Second Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (Doc.
28) along with a 55-page proposed Third Amended Complaint and
a 39-page exhibit. In all, ...