United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
JOHN K. ADAMS, Plaintiff,
COLES COUNTY JAIL, et. al., Defendants
MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
E. SHADID UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Court dismissed Plaintiff's original complaint pursuant
to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
See September 11, 2017 Merit Review Order. The
Plaintiff had not clearly identified his intended claims, he
was attempting to combine several unrelated claims against
different defendants in one lawsuit, and most, if not all, of
his claims were barred by the two year statute of limitations
period. See September 11, 2017 Merit Review Order.
complaint included “extensive detail concerning a
litany of problems he encountered during his stay at the
Coles County Jail as a pretrial detainee from June 13, 2014
to October 1, 2014 and from November 16, 2014 to March 17,
2015.” September 11, 2017 Merit Review Order, p. 1-2.
However, the Court did not receive Plaintiff's complaint
until March 20, 2017. See Houston v Lack, 487 U.S.
266 (1988)(establishing mailbox rule for prisoner filings);
Smith v. Asghar, 114 Fed.Appx. 222, 223-24
(7th Cir. 2004) (pro se prisoners complaint filed
on the date it was delivered to prison officials). While it
was unclear if Plaintiff had exhausted his administrative
remedies for any of his claims, the Court noted “even
if Plaintiff was prevented from filing grievances or he never
received a response to any grievance, the statute of
limitations period began to run at the very latest when
Plaintiff was transferred to the Illinois Department of
Corrections (IDOC) on March 17, 2015.” September 11,
2017 Merit Review Order, p. 6; citing Merritte v. Lasalle
County Sherriff's Office, 2015 WL 8986857, at *7-8
(N.D.Ill.Dec. 16,, 2015)(once plaintiff moved out of the
jail, “the two-year statute of limitations began to run
because (plaintiff) clearly was not going to receive a
response to his grievances from the Defendants when he was no
longer housed there.”); Diaz-Guillen v.
Vieregge, 2017 WL 2645624, at *2 (S.D.Ill. July 30,
2017)(once plaintiff was moved out of jail ant into
“IDOC custody, he clearly was not going to receive a
response to any grievances he may have filed. As such, the
two-year statute of limitations period began to run.”).
Plaintiff filed his complaint on March 15, 2017, any events
which occurred prior to March 15, 2015 were time barred.
Therefore, Plaintiff's claims were limited to a two day
period before he was transferred to IDOC on March 17, 2015.
In addition, the Court noted if the Defendants could
demonstrate Plaintiff completed the grievance process
earlier, all of his claims would be time barred. See
September 11, 2017 Merit Review Order.
if Plaintiff still believed he could state a constitutional
violation within this time frame, he was given the option to
file an amended complaint “limited to those
claims.” September 11, 2017 Merit Review Order, p. 7.
Plaintiff was also given specific instructions to follow.
However, if the pro se Plaintiff believed all his claims were
time-barred, he was given the option to voluntarily dismiss
his case and the Court would waive the filing fee.
chose to file a motion for leave to amend his complaint.
. The motion is granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15.
Court is still required by 28 U.S.C. §1915A to
“screen” the Plaintiff's amended complaint,
and through such process to identify and dismiss any legally
insufficient claim, or the entire action if warranted. A
claim is legally insufficient if it “(1) is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §1915A.
Plaintiff has wholly ignored the Court's directions in
his amended complaint. He continues to combine unrelated
claims alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111-213;
the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 794-94e;
deliberate indifference to a serious medical condition;
unconstitutional conditions of confinement; excessive force;
etc. More important, Plaintiff again alleges incidents that
happened outside the two year statute of limitations period.
repeatedly refers to specific events which occurred in 2014.
(Amd. Comp., p. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,
24, 25, 26, 27). However, Plaintiff's only mention of
2015 is his blanket statement that he was denied mental
health care throughout his incarceration. (Amd. Comp., p.
19-20). Given that Plaintiff is an experienced
litigator and the Court specifically advised him of
the deficiencies in his original complaint, Plaintiff's
amended complaint does not clearly allege any incidents
within the statute of limitations period.
Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted and for
failure to follow the Court's orders. Since Plaintiff has
failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the
dismissal will count as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915(g). See Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910,
920-21 (2007); Turner v. Wisconsin Dept. of
Corrections, 2015 WL 3495497, at *2 (W.D.Wis. June 3,
since filing his original complaint, Plaintiff has now
accumulated three strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1915(g). See Adams v Bower, Case No. 17-2061
(9/21/17 strike); Adams v Acevado, Case No. 16-1389
(4/19/17 strike); Adams v. Tillis, Case No. 16-2233
(11/8/16 strike). This statute provides:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a
judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section
if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while
incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action
or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed
on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the
prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
See 28 U.S.C. §1915(g).
Plaintiff is admonished in any future litigation concerning
prison conditions in which he seeks leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, Plaintiff MUST inform the Court of his three
strikes status pursuant to §1915(g). “An effort to
bamboozle the court by seeking permission to proceed in forma
pauperis after a federal judge has held that §1915(g)
applies to a particular ...