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.

Jones v. Roberts

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

September 19, 2017

CORBIN D. JONES, # 01-30-1989-46, Plaintiff,
v.
JENNIFER ROBERTS, LT. HAYNES, LT. BONNIE MAY, C/O SPARTEGUES, CAPT. MOUNT, C/O JEFF CLARK, NURSE SHIRLEY, DR. PAULIUS, C/O FORTAG, C/O EDWARDS, DEPUTY TRAVIS SCOTT, C/O CONWAY, and C/O McKINNIS, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          J. Phil Gilbert United States District Judge

         This matter is now before the Court for review of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Doc. 16). This amended pleading was timely filed on June 20, 2017, at the direction of the Court, after the original Complaint was dismissed for noncompliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. (Doc. 14). In the dismissal order, Plaintiff was instructed to “present each claim in a separate count, ” using the numbered counts (Counts 5-11) as designated by the Court in Doc. 14, and to specify each Defendant by name who was alleged to be liable under the count. (Doc. 14, p. 11).

         In the June 12, 2017, order that directed Plaintiff to file the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 14), the Court described Plaintiff's claims as follows:

Count 5: Excessive force claim against the unidentified officers who arrested Jones on February 13 or 14, 2017, for applying handcuffs to Jones' wrists so tightly that his hands were swollen for several days;
Count 6: Deliberate indifference claim against unidentified jail staff for the failure to provide Jones with medical testing for communicable diseases following his exposure to a cellmate's blood after the cellmate's suicide attempt;
Count 7: Deliberate indifference claim against unidentified jail staff for the failure to provide Jones with cleaning supplies or to clean the areas in and near his cell that were contaminated with blood;
Count 8: Deliberate indifference claim against Scott, Mount, Haynes, and Nurse Shirley for failing to provide Jones with medical treatment for burns and cuts on his arms sustained before his arrest;
Count 9: First Amendment claim for the improper opening and destruction/loss of Jones' legal mail, against Edwards, Spartegues, Jeff, and Roberts;
Count 10: Deliberate indifference claim against Haynes and Roberts for the failure to permit Jones to leave the cell for recreation;
Count 11: Deliberate indifference claim against unidentified jail staff for placing Jones in a cell with insufficient heat, bedding, or clothing; exposing him to black mold, rusty drinking water, and insects; and serving him spoiled milk and soggy food.

         The First Amended Complaint (Doc. 16) consisting of 20 pages, is much more concise than the original 70-page Complaint, but is somewhat disjointed and repetitive, and includes no reference to Counts 5-11. It also appears to include some extraneous material unrelated to this action, and includes references to dental problems and denial of access to religious services that were not included at all in the original pleading.

         Complicating the review of the First Amended Complaint is the fact that on July 19, 2017, Plaintiff submitted what appears to be a proposed supplement to his First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff did not include any motion or explanation with this submission, but the Clerk docketed a motion to supplement the amended complaint (Doc. 18) when the material was received. The documents have not been filed of record pending the Court's review. The proposed supplement consists of a Civil Cover Sheet, and 4 pages in which Plaintiff sets forth Counts 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, with the addition of several Defendants' names and some additional facts for each of these counts. It also includes a certificate of service.

         The additional information in the proposed supplement would appear to help clarify and organize the First Amended Complaint, if the two documents were combined. However, a litigant is not permitted to submit pleadings in a piecemeal fashion (often referred to as amendment by interlineation) as Plaintiff has attempted to do here. Consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), amendment by interlineation is not permitted; all claims against all defendants must be set forth in a single document. Furthermore, the proposed supplement does not contain a case caption listing the parties and case number, nor did Plaintiff sign the document (he merely signed the certificate of service included after his list of Counts 6-11). It does not include most of the factual allegations that are set forth in the First Amended Complaint. Thus, the proposed supplement is insufficient to stand alone as an amended complaint. If the proposed supplement were to be filed, it would supersede and replace the Fist Amended Complaint, and because of its deficiencies, it would be subject to dismissal. See Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am., 354 F.3d 632, 638 n.1 (7th Cir. 2004) (amended complaint replaces the previous complaint, rendering the earlier pleading void). It does not appear that Plaintiff would desire this result. For these reasons, Plaintiff's proposed supplement to the First Amended Complaint shall not be filed of record. The motion to supplement amended complaint (Doc. 18) is DENIED.

         In consideration of Plaintiff's attempt to supplement his amended complaint, he shall be allowed one final opportunity to submit a complete amended complaint. As he prepares his next amended pleading, he may combine his proposed supplement ...


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.