United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
E. SHADID UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
proceeding pro se and detained in the Rushville Treatment and
Detention Center, seeks leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. The "privilege to proceed without posting
security for costs and fees is reserved to the many truly
impoverished litigants who, within the District Court's
sound discretion, would remain without legal remedy if such
privilege were not afforded to them." Brewster v.
North Am. Van Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir.
1972). Additionally, a court must dismiss cases proceeding in
forma pauperis "at any time" if the action is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim, even if part
of the filing fee has been paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)(2).
Accordingly, this Court grants leave to proceed in forma
pauperis only if the complaint states a federal claim.
reviewing the complaint, the Court accepts the factual
allegations as true, liberally construing them in
Plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d
645, 649 (7thCir. 2013). However, conclusory
statements and labels are insufficient. Enough facts must be
provided to "'state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face.'" Alexander v. U.S.,
721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(quoted cite
Plaintiff has identified one Defendant: Nurse Alice Ore.
Although Plaintiff's complaint is somewhat difficult to
decipher, he clearly focuses on problems with his dialysis
treatment. Plaintiff has filed 35 cases in the Central
District of Illinois and 28 of those cases alleging
deliberate indifference to a serious medical condition based
on dissatisfaction with his dialysis treatment or allege some
interference with his dialysis treatment. See Scott v
Smith, 13-3157 (del. ind. on March 25, 2013); Scott
v Goddard, 14-3309, November 2, 2015 (consolidating 21
cases encompassing alleged conduct from March 2013 to August
2015 including Scott v. Cobb, No.14-3182; Scott
v. Lucas, No. 14-3202; Scott v. Ore, No.
14-3271; Scott v. Taylor, No. 14-CV-3279; Scott
v. Goddard, No. 14-CV-3309; Scott v. Ore, No.
14-CV-3310; Scott v. Sullivan, No. 14-CV-3377;
Scott v. Ore, No. 14-CV-3398; Scott v.
Sullivan, No. 14-CV-3400; Scott v. Wallace, No.
14-CV-3403; Scott v. Walker, No. 14-CV-3404;
Scott v. Bednarz, No. 14-CV-3405; Scott v.
Lochard, No. 15-CV-3001; Scott v. Kerr, No.
15-CV-3004; Scott v. Ore, No. 15-CV-3009; Scott
v. Cleavinger, No. 15-CV-3017; Scott v. Kulhan,
No. 15-CV -3023; Scott v. Lay, No. 15-CV-3116;
Scott v. Ore, No. 15-CV-4068; Scott v. Ore,
No. 15-CV-4111; Scott v. Ore, No. 15-CV-4130);
Scott v. Chardonnay Dialysis, No. 15-CV-3080
(duplicative); Scott v. Orr, No. 15-CV-4143 (del.
ind.); Scott v. Orr, No. 15-CV-4149 (del. ind.);
Scott v. Thurman, No. 16-CV-4031(del. ind.);
Scott v. Hougas, No. 16-CV-4035 (prevented from
receiving dialysis; see also Scott v. Scott, No.
13-CV-3250 (living conditions); Scott v. Scott, No.
14-CV-3229 (slip and fall); Scott v. Shelton, No.
14-CV-3297 (retaliation); Scott v. Scott, No.
14-CV-3336 (retaliation); Scott v. Wilks, No.
15-CV-4121(retaliation); Scott v. Cal, No.
16-CV-4181(dismissed); Scott v. Morton, No.
16-CV-4182 (slip and fall).
provides some background in his current complaint concerning
his need of dialysis including issues which occurred in 2011
through 2014. If Plaintiff was intending to state any claims
based on events during this time period, his claim is barred.
First, the claims would be barred by the two year statute of
limitations period. See Wilson v Giesen, 956 F.2d
738, 740 (7th Cir. 1992); Farrell v. McDonough, 966
F.2d 279, 280-82 (7th Cir. 1992). Second, the Court
previously consolidated 20 of Plaintiff's cases and he
was directed to file an amended complaint that
“include[d] all allegations against all defendants for
claims involving the denial of dialysis treatment and
retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights for the
time period from March 2013 through August of 2015.”
Scott v Goddard, 14-3309, November 2, 2015 Order, p.
it appears the focus of Plaintiff's complaint involves
events which occurred on January 9, 2015. Plaintiff says he
was scheduled for dialysis for four and a half hours on
Monday, Wednesday and Friday. However, on January 9, 2015,
Plaintiff was also scheduled for a follow-up appointment
after eye surgery. When a Captain called Defendant Nurse Ore
to inquire whether she could begin dialysis earlier,
Defendant Orr said she could not. The nurse stated she had
eight patients scheduled and one patient could not be
scheduled with Plaintiff since Plaintiff has Hepatitis B.
Plaintiff disputes the reasons provided by Defendant Nurse
Orr. It's not entirely clear from the complaint, but it
appears Plaintiff may have gone to the eye doctor and
consequently he had to wait until the following scheduled day
for dialysis. Plaintiff claims the delay could have caused
serious injury or death, but he does not allege any injury
has not clearly articulated a constitutional violation based
on either his disagreement with scheduling or a short delay
in receiving dialysis that did not result in any alleged
harm. More important, the Plaintiff has again tried to
circumvent the Court's previous ruling. Plaintiff was
clearly admonished that any claims alleging Defendants
inferred with his right to dialysis which took place between
March 2013 through August of 2015 had to be included in his
amended complaint in Scott v Goddard, 14-3309.
Plaintiff clearly knew about the allegations in the case at
bar in January of 2015, long before he filed his amended
complaint in Scott v Goddard, 14-3309 on December
31, 2015.  Because Plaintiff violated the Court's
order to include all claims in his amended complaint, he has
forfeited his right to pursue his claim in this case.
Court further notes Plaintiff has repeatedly ignored the
Court's order in Scott v Goddard, 14-3309.
Plaintiff has attempted to file duplicative lawsuits or
lawsuits including claims which clearly should have been
included in his amended complaint. See Scott v.
Thurman, No. 16-CV-4031(July 27, 2016 dismissal order);
Scott v. Chardonnay Dialysis, No. 15-CV-3080 (August
7, 2015 text order); Scott v. Orr, No. 15-CV-4149
(July 27, 2016 dismissal order). The Seventh Circuit has made
clear that duplicative litigation need not be tolerated.
The irrationality of tolerating duplicative litigation in the
federal system is all the more pronounced where, as here, two
federal judges sitting on the same district court are ...
devoting scarce judicial resources to the adjudication of the
same charges by essentially the same plaintiffs against the
same defendants.” Serlin v. Arthur Andersen &
Co., 3 F.3d 221, 224 (7th Cir.1993) quoting Ridge
Gold Standard Liquors, Inc. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons,
Inc., 572 F.Supp. 1210, 1213 (N.D.Ill.1983).
a case proceeding in forma pauperis may be dismissed if the
suit is malicious, and courts have found repetitive filings
may meet this standard. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(d)(2); see also Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d
1107, 1109 (7th Cir.2003) (suit is “malicious”
for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 if it is intended to
harass or is otherwise abusive of the judicial process);
Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994-95 (5th
Cir.1993) (holding that it is malicious for a plaintiff to
file a lawsuit under the in forma pauperis statute
that duplicates allegations of another pending lawsuit);
Bussie v. Attorney General, 2013 WL 3934179, at *2
(W.D.Wis. July 30, 2013)(“Repetitive allegations.of the
sort made by (Plaintiff) are considered malicious and are
grounds for dismissal under the PLRA.”).
Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice. In
addition, Plaintiff is admonished he will face sanctions if
he continues to file: 1) complaints repeating claims previous
filed; 2) complaints concerning either an interference or
denial of his dialysis between March 2013 and August of 2015;
or 3) complaints alleging retaliation based on events that
took place between March of 2013 through August of 2015.
1) Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice for
failure to comply with the Court's order in Scott v
Goddard, 14-3309, and as malicious and for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1915(d). All pending motions are denied as moot.
2) Plaintiff is admonished if he continues to file complaints
in violation of this order and the November 2, 2015 Order in
Scott v ...