Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Oliver v. Butler

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

March 23, 2017

MICHAEL OLIVER Suing as King Michael Oliver, # B-89925, Plaintiff,
v.
KIMBERLY BUTLER, MAJOR LYERLA, and SERGEANT SCOTT, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          David R. Herndon United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff 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).

         He 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. (Doc. 1).

         The 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 2”).
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”).

         (Doc. 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.

         With 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.

         It is 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.

         Before 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.

         Disposition

         IT IS 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 ...


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.