Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kitterman v. Director

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

November 7, 2016

SHANE A. KITTERMAN, # B80577, Plaintiff,
DIRECTOR, et al., Defendants.


          STACI M. YANDLE United States District Judge.

         This 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).


         Plaintiff 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 offender registry.

         The 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).

         Plaintiff supplemented Document 1 with seven additional documents.[1] 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).

         To 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 Complaint.

         In 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).

         In 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).

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff 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, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.