United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL United States District Judge.
Tony Dixon, an inmate in Stateville Correctional Center,
brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Given
inconsistencies between the complaint (Doc. 1) and the record
at this stage, it is unclear whether the events giving rise
to Plaintiff's complaint occurred in the Southern
District of Illinois at Pinckneyville Correctional Center or
the Northern District of Illinois at Stateville Correctional
Center. Prior to a preliminary review of the case pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, this Court seeks to resolve this
Complaint and Record
originally filed a pro se complaint (Doc. 1) on
April 25, 2016, with the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois in Case No. 16-cv-4646. In that
case, Plaintiff filed an Application for Leave to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3) and a Motion for Attorney
Representation (Doc. 4). Both of these motions were granted
May 10, 2016, and Plaintiff was appointed counsel that day.
(Doc. 5). The Northern District also granted Plaintiff's
Motion for Extension of Time for Appointed Counsel to
Complete Initial Investigation on July 22, 2016. (Doc. 10).
It then granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint
after a status hearing held on September 8, 2016. (Doc. 13).
Northern District transferred Plaintiff's case to this
District citing information it received from Plaintiff's
appointed counsel. In its transfer order dated October 20,
2016, the Court cited Plaintiff's counsel's statement
that “having investigated the allegations in the
complaint and the facts supporting the allegations, it
appears that plaintiff's medical claims arise from his
incarceration at IDOC Pinckneyville, which is in the Southern
District of Illinois, and that he has no current claims
regarding his current incarceration at Stateville.”
(Doc. 15). When the case was transferred, Plaintiff's
appointed counsel withdrew. (Doc. 15).
review of Plaintiff's original complaint (Doc. 1), this
Court does not find any claims clearly arising from
Plaintiff's incarceration at Pinckneyville. The
defendants named in the complaint include the Illinois
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), a Deputy
Director of IDOC, employees of Stateville Correctional
Center, and Wexford Health Care Services, a private entity.
None of the defendants is employed by or located at
Pinckneyville. Plaintiff similarly does not clearly allege
any violation of his constitutional rights at Pinckneyville,
though he makes allegations regarding his conditions of
confinement at Stateville and regarding Stateville
employees' indifference to his medical needs throughout
his complaint. (Doc. 1, p. 7). An amended complaint has not
yet been filed in this case.
the discrepancy between the facts articulated in the
complaint and the indication by Plaintiff's appointed
counsel that the only remaining claims Plaintiff has relate
to his incarceration at Pinckneyville, this Court seeks
clarification of the claims Plaintiff intends to bring before
it takes further action in this case. This Court will
therefore extend Plaintiff's leave to file an amended
complaint by 28 days. On or before February 17, 2017,
Plaintiff shall file a “First Amended Complaint”
that focuses on his claims arising at Pinckneyville. The
instructions and deadline for filing the amended complaint
are set forth in the disposition below. If Plaintiff instead
wishes to proceed with his claims arising at Stateville, as
set forth in the original complaint, he must notify the Court
of his intention to do so in writing by the same deadline.
Failure to either file an amended complaint or file written
notice that he intends to proceed with his original complaint
will result in dismissal of this action for failure to comply
with a court order and/or for failure to prosecute his
claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
is GRANTED leave to file a “First Amended
Complaint” on or before February 17, 2017, in order to
address his claims arising at Pinckneyville Correctional
Center. Alternatively, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file written
notice with the Court by the same deadline, if he intends to
proceed with the claims he set forth in his original
complaint. Failure to comply with this Order shall result in
dismissal of this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Plaintiff decide to file a First 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 (i.e.
16-cv-1222-NJR). 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
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. 1998).
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 ...