United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MICHAEL OLIVER Suing as King Michael Oliver, # B-89925, Plaintiff,
KIMBERLY BUTLER, MAJOR LYERLA, and SERGEANT SCOTT, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
R. Herndon United States District Judge.
Michael Oliver, an inmate who is currently incarcerated at
Pinckneyville Correctional Center
(“Pinckneyville”), brings this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three
officials at Menard Correctional Center
(“Menard”), who allegedly violated his
constitutional rights there in 2015. (Doc. 2, 2-1). These
officials include Warden Kimberly Butler, Major Lyerla, and
Sergeant Scott (“Menard defendants”).
Id. Plaintiff seeks monetary relief against them.
(Doc. 2, pp. 1, 5-6).
originally brought these claims in Oliver v. Lashbrook,
et al., No. 17-cv-00169-DRH (S.D. Ill. 2017)
(“original case”). (Doc. 2). That case addressed
claims against a group of Pinckneyville defendants, Menard
defendants, and State defendants. (Doc. 1, p. 1; Doc. 2). On
February 24, 2017, the Court entered an initial order
dismissing the State defendants with prejudice and severing
the claims against the Menard defendants into a new case.
instant case focuses only on Plaintiff's claims against
the Menard defendants, which the Court identified as follows:
Count 10 - Eighth Amendment claim against Major Lyerla for
making the decision to transfer Plaintiff to Menard on July
22, 2015, to transfer him from the “hill” to the
“pit” at Menard, and/or to transfer him to
Pinckneyville following the flood that occurred at Menard on
December 28, 2015. (Doc. 2, pp. 2-3, “Count 2”).
Count 11 - Claim against Warden Butler for conspiring with
Major Lyerla at Menard to violate Plaintiff's
constitutional rights and for responding to the transfer
decisions with gross negligence. (Doc. 2, p. 2, “Count
Count 12 - Claim against Sergeant Scott for harassing and
threatening Plaintiff at Menard because of his visitor's
list. (Doc. 2, p. 3, “Count 2”).
Count 13 - Fourteenth Amendment due process and negligence
claims against Major Lyerla and “others” for
mishandling Plaintiff's grievances at Menard in order to
prevent him from exhausting his administrative remedies.
(Doc. 2, p. 3, “Count 3”).
1, pp. 7, 13). This list of claims is consistent with the
“counts” identified by Plaintiff in the
Complaint. (Doc. 2, pp. 2-5). Because Plaintiff offers few
factual allegations in support of these claims, the Court
offers no summary of the allegations here. Id.
that said, the above list of claims appears to be incomplete.
Omitted from the list are additional claims Plaintiff
included in the exhibits to the Complaint. (Doc. 2, pp. 7-23;
Doc. 2-1, pp. 1-19). Plaintiff refers to these exhibits as
“Amendments” and signals his intention to expand
his claims against the Menard defendants. Id. In
“Amendment A, ” he refers to additional claims
against officials at Menard. (Doc. 2, p. 7). The claims are
not included in the Complaint. Id.
not even clear that Plaintiff filed all of the exhibits to
the Complaint. This is largely because he used no
recognizable system for organizing and labeling the exhibits.
He included a series of exhibits in the following order:
Exhibit 4 (Doc. 2, p. 14), Exhibit 6 (Doc. 2, p. 15), Exhibit
X (Doc. 2, p. 16), Exhibit 10A (Doc. 2, p. 17), Exhibit W
(Doc. 2, pp. 18-19), Exhibit 10B (Doc. 2, pp. 20-21), Exhibit
Z (Doc. 2, pp. 22-23), Exhibit Z2 Squared (Doc. 2-1, p. 1),
Exhibit T (Doc. 2-1, pp. 2-3), Exhibit T2 (Doc. 2-1, p. 4),
Exhibit OR1 (Doc. 2-1, p. 5), Exhibit 17 (Doc. 2-1, p. 6),
Exhibit 18 (Doc. 2-1, p. 7), Unnumbered Exhibits (Doc. 2-1,
pp. 8-13), Exhibit IRA (Doc. 2-1, p. 14), Exhibit 29 (Doc.
2-1, pp. 15-19), etc. Given the obvious lack of organization
of his exhibits, the Court has no way to tell whether the
Complaint is complete.
conducting a preliminary review of Plaintiff's claims
against the Menard defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A, the Court will offer Plaintiff an opportunity to file
an amended complaint in this case that focuses only
on claims arising at Menard. The instructions and deadline
for amending the complaint are set forth in the below
disposition. Failure to file an amended complaint that is
consistent with the below instructions and deadline shall
result in the Court's preliminary review of Counts 10-13
based on the limited allegations that are set forth in the
original Complaint and severance of unrelated claims into new
cases with an additional filing fee in each case.
HEREBY ORDERED that preliminary review of COUNTS 10-13
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A is suspended in
this case until after April 20, 2017. On or before
that date, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a First Amended
Complaint that includes all related claims against the Menard
defendants. Failure to file a First Amended Complaint that
complies with this Order (including the instructions and
deadline set forth herein) will result in the screening,
dismissal, and/or further severance of Counts ...