United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
BILLY McDADE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
proceeding pro se, pursues a § 1983 action alleging
inhumane conditions of confinement at the Pontiac
Correctional Center (“Pontiac”). The case is
before the Court for a merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. In 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, 649-51 (7th Cir. 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. United States, 721 F.3d
418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(citation and internal quotation
marks omitted). While the pleading standard does not require
“detailed factual allegations”, it requires
“more than an unadorned,
Wilson v. Ryker, 451 Fed.Appx. 588, 589 (7th Cir.
2011) quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
alleges that he was held in unconstitutional conditions of
confinement from December 2016 to April 2017. Plaintiff was
in segregation on West House Gallery 1-9 which allegedly was
unheated and where the water was contaminated with black ink.
Plaintiff alleges that he grieved these conditions and was
finally moved to the North House, “for no good
reason.” When moved, he cursed Major Prentice who
responded “welcome to North House, ” and walked
5, 2017, Plaintiff was in a small room on 5 Gallery near the
medical unit when Lt. Corley and three Orange Crush Officers
allegedly beat him unconscious. When Plaintiff regained
consciousness, he was placed in cell 433 where he was left
for seven days without a bed or personal property. Plaintiff
does not disclose any particular injury but claims he
submitted medical request slips and received no response.
complaint is woefully inadequate. He does not identify the
parties responsible for placing him in the alleged conditions
of confinement from December 2016 through April 2017. His
only claim against Major Prentice is that she said
“welcome to North House” and walked away.
Plaintiff might be claiming that he was beaten for having
cursed Major Prentice, but does not state this. He does not
disclose the date he was transferred from West House but the
court presumes this was in April 2017, as that is the last
date he identifies as being subjected to the inhumane
Plaintiff is alleging that on May 5, 2017, he was beaten by
Defendant Corley and three officers, at the direction of
Major Prentice, he is stating a new claim unrelated to the
conditions of confinement in West House. He also attempts to
assert a deliberate indifference claim without alleging any
injury or identifying any individuals from whom he requested
treatment. Plaintiff's new claim of excessive force,
deliberate indifference and conditions of confinement in
North House is unrelated to his conditions of confinement in
West House and may not be pled in the same complaint. See
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007)
(“[u]nrelated claims against different defendants
belong in different suits.” In other words,
“multiple claims against a single party are fine, but
Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with
unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. The Seventh Circuit
has instructed that such “buckshot” complaints
should be “rejected.” Id.
also discloses that he filed his complaint prior to the
completion of the grievance process. Plaintiff is subject to
the provisions of the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act which
require an inmate to exhaust all available administrative
remedies prior to filing suit. 42 U.S.C.§ 1997(e)(a).
See Kincaid v. Sangamon County, 435 Fed.Appx. 533,
536-537, 2011 WL 2036441 at *3 (7th Cir. 2011). A district
court may dismiss a complaint at screening if ‘the
existence of a valid affirmative defense, such as the failure
to exhaust, is so plain from the face of the complaint that
the suit can be regarded as frivolous… But the defense
must be unmistakable…'” Boyce v.
Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 661 Fed.Appx. 441, 443
(7th Cir. 2016) (internal citations omitted). Here, the
determination as to whether Plaintiff failed to exhaust will
have to wait for a more fully developed record.
complaint is DISMISSED with leave to replead within 30 days.
It is suggested that Plaintiff either plead his West House
conditions of confinement claim or his North House excessive
force, deliberate indifference and conditions claim. The
other must be filed as a separate suit. Plaintiff is advised
that his amended complaint must identify those individuals
whom he holds responsible for each constitutional violation.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a
claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. §
1915A. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of this
order to file an amended complaint. Failure to file an
amended complaint will result in the dismissal of this case,
without prejudice, for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff
must identify the filing as a First Amended Complaint and it
must stand complete on its own, without reference to a prior
pleading The amended complaint must contain all allegations
against all Defendants as piecemeal complaints are not
Plaintiff's motions for status  is rendered MOOT.
Plaintiff's motion for recruitment of pro bono counsel
 is DENIED with leave ...