United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
E. SHADID UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
cause before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff's
second motion for leave to file an amended complaint. 
a pro se prisoner, filed his original 25 page complaint with
42 pages of exhibits.  One month later, Plaintiff filed a
motion for leave to amend his complaint. . Plaintiff's
first motion for leave to amend included an additional 56
pages of exhibits, but it did include a proposed complaint.
Therefore, the Court dismissed the motion for leave to amend,
and instead considered the claims in the original complaint.
See September 21, 2017 Merit Review Order.
alleged eight Defendants at the East Moline Correctional
Center (EMCC) violated his First Amendment rights when they
denied him meaningful access to the Courts. However, the
Court was unable to decipher Plaintiff's specific claim.
See September 21, 2017 Merit Review Order.
instance, Plaintiff alleged he missed a filing deadline in
another Central District of Illinois case. However, a review
of the docket in that lawsuit found there was no such
deadline, and the case was not dismissed until after
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit. See September 21, 2017
Merit Review Order, p. 2-3.
also alleged he missed a deadline in a class action lawsuit
in which he was represented by counsel. However, it was
unclear how Defendants interfered with Plaintiff's
litigation when he admitted he was represented by counsel who
was responsible for those deadlines. See September
21, 2017 Merit Review Order, p. 3.
also made vague reference to problems obtaining legal
envelopes and the inadequacy of the law library, but he
failed to articulate a constitutional violation and he failed
to allege how any of the named Defendants were involved in
his claims. See September 21, 2017 Merit Review
Order, p. 3-4.
the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint for failure to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted, but allowed
Plaintiff additional time to file a second amended complaint
clarifying his claims. Plaintiff was also provided
instructions to assist him. For instance, Plaintiff was
directed to provide numbered paragraphs.
For each paragraph, Plaintiff must state what specific claim
he was prevented from pursuing, how he was hindered from
pursing his claim, approximately when it occurred, and how an
Defendant was involved. For instance, if Plaintiff was denied
relevant case law, he must state when he requested
assistance, who denied assistance, and how the denial
specifically impacted his claim. September 21, 2017 Merit
Review Order, p. 4.
was further admonished in order to state a constitutional
violation, a complaint “must spell out, in minimal
detail, the connection between the alleged denial of access
to legal materials and an inability to pursue a legitimate
challenge to a conviction, sentence, or prison
conditions.” September 21, 2017 Merit Review Order, p.
2 quoting Ortiz v. Downey, 561 F.3d 664, 671
(7th Cir. 2009).
has now filed his motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint which is granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15. .
Court is still required by 28 U.S.C. §1915A to
“screen” the Plaintiff's second 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.
second amended complaint identifies eight Defendants
including Education Department Supervisor Jenny Wheat, Former
Librarian Joshua Baker, Warden Christine Brannon,
Administrator Jason Garza, “Warden of Programs”
Jane Doe, Administrator Todd Jackson, the East Moline
Correctional Center, and the Illinois Department of
Corrections. Plaintiff says he is suing pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§1983 for violations of his Fourteenth Amendment and
First Amendment rights “as well as a true deliberate
indifference as well (prison condition).” (Sec. Amd.
Comp., p. 1).
Court notes throughout his complaint, Plaintiff alleges
Defendants Wheat, Battle, Brannon, Jackson, and Garza either
failed to properly respond to his grievances, lied in
relation to his grievances, or ignored his ...