United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE U.S. District Judge.
action is before the Court on a document filed by Plaintiff
(Doc. 1) on January 9, 2017 in the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois. This document was
construed as a Complaint and transferred to the Southern
District of Illinois on January 18, 2017. (Doc. 2). The
document is in the form of a letter in which Plaintiff
narrates instances that may give rise to § 1983 claims.
It does not include a case caption or list of defendants,
does it provide clear answers to any of the questions that
can be found on this Court's standard § 1983
complaint form, including whether Plaintiff exhausted
administrative remedies, whether defendants are employed by
the state, and whether Plaintiff has brought any other
lawsuits related to his imprisonment. Further, the only
relief Plaintiff appears to be requesting in the narrative of
his letter is a transfer to Pontiac Correctional Center, and
none of the individuals mentioned in the letter are capable
of providing this relief.
is written, this document does not satisfy the applicable
pleading standard under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure of providing a “short and plain statement of
the grounds for the court's jurisdiction” and
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Additionally, the
allegations are insufficient to provide whoever Plaintiff
intends to name as a defendant with “fair notice of the
claim and its basis, ” particularly because Plaintiff
has failed to properly name any defendants to receive such
notice. See Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751
(7th Cir. 2011).
is ORDERED to file a complete § 1983 complaint on or
before February 16, 2017. Failure to comply with this Order
shall result in dismissal of this action for failure to
comply with an order of this Court. See Fed. R. Civ.
strongly recommended that Plaintiff use the forms designed
for use in this District for § 1983 actions. He should
label the form, “First Amended Complaint, ” and
he should use the case number for this action
(i.e. 17-cv-051-SMY). The pleading 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 alleged to have been taken
by that defendant. 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.
Plaintiff should include only related claims in his
new complaint. Claims 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. To
enable Plaintiff to comply with this order, the CLERK is
DIRECTED to mail Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint
form, along with a copy of the original Complaint and this
Order. The Clerk of Court is also DIRECTED to remove all
parties mistakenly listed as defendants on CM-ECF and include
UNKNOWN PARTY as the defendant.
amended complaint supersedes and replaces the original
complaint, rendering the original complaint void. See
Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am., 354 F.3d
632, 638 n. 1 (7th Cir. 2004). The Court will not accept
piecemeal amendments to the original Complaint. Thus, the
First Amended Complaint must stand on its own, without
reference to any previous pleading, and Plaintiff must
re-file any exhibits he wishes the Court to consider along
with the First Amended Complaint. The First Amended Complaint
is subject to review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
is further ADVISED that his obligation to pay the filing fee
for this action was incurred at the time the action was
filed, thus the filing fee of $350.00 remains due and payable,
regardless of whether Plaintiff elects to file a First
Amended Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1);
Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir.
Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation
to keep the Clerk of Court and each opposing party informed
of any change in his address; the Court will not
independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done
in writing and not later than 7 days after a transfer or
other change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this
order will cause a delay in the transmission of court
documents and may result in dismissal of this action for want
of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
 Though certain individuals are listed
as defendants on the case caption in CM-ECF, this was in
error. When parties are not listed in the caption of a
plaintiff's complaint, this Court will not treat them as
defendants, and any claims against them should be considered
dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
10(a) (noting that the title of the complaint “must
name all the parties”); Myles v. United
States, 416 F.3d 551, 551-52 (7th Cir. 2005) (holding
that to be properly considered a party, a defendant must be
“specif[ied] in the caption”). There are no
properly named defendants at this time in the case.
See Gonzalez v. Feinerman,
663 F.3d 311, 315 (7th Cir. 2011) (warden is the proper
defendant in deliberate indifference case requesting
injunctive relief as person “responsible for ensuring