United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Joel Means is currently housed at Chester Mental Health
Center located in Chester, Illinois. He brings this civil
rights action against an administrator at Chester Mental
Health Center named Joe Haper. (Doc. 1, p. 1). The allegations
in the Complaint are largely incoherent. Id. For
this reason, the Court is unable to determine the exact
nature of plaintiff's claims against Haper, although they
appear to relate to an untreated stomach problem. (Doc. 1, p.
4). Plaintiff failed to explain what role Haper played in
denying him medical care or clearly describe what relief he
now seeks. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
Complaint is subject to preliminary review. However, the
Court lacks sufficient information about plaintiff's
status as a “prisoner” or a poor person to
determine whether screening is appropriate under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, which applies to prisoners, or 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B), which applies to non-prisoners who seek leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
Plaintiff does not disclose the basis for his current
confinement at Chester. He also failed to file a motion
seeking leave to proceed as a poor person. Regardless of his
status as a prisoner, the Complaint fails to state any claim
for relief and shall be dismissed.
1915A governs civil actions brought by prisoners against a
governmental entity or officer. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
The statute defines “prisoner” to include
“any person incarcerated or detained in any facility
who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or
adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the
terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release,
or diversionary program.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c). The
Court is required to dismiss a prisoner's complaint, or
any portion of it, that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted or that seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1)-(2).
rights action filed by a non-prisoner who seeks leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) is
screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Notwithstanding any filing fee that has been paid, §
1915(e)(2) compels the Court to dismiss a case that is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). See also
Luevano v. Wal- Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1018
(7th Cir. 2013).
instant Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted and therefore warrants dismissal under both
statutes. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). An action fails to state a
claim for relief when it does not plead “enough facts
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The claim of entitlement to relief must
cross “the line between possibility and
plausibility.” Id. at 557.
order to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege that he was deprived of a constitutionally protected
right by a defendant who acted under color of state law.
See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See also McNabola v.
Chicago Transit Auth., 10 F.3d 501, 513 (7th Cir. 1993);
Patrick v. Jasper Cnty., 901 F.2d 561, 565 (7th Cir.
1990). A government official may not be held liable under
§ 1983 based only on his or her role as a supervisor.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 US. 662, 676 (2009).
Liability requires personal involvement in or responsibility
for the deprivation of a constitutional right. Knight v.
Wiseman, 590 F.3d 458, 462-63 (7th Cir. 2009) (citation
omitted); Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561 (7th
Cir. 1995). In other words, a plaintiff who claims that he
was denied adequate medical care must name as defendants
those individuals who are responsible for the inadequate
medical care and describe what each defendant did, or failed
to do, to treat him. This does not require plaintiff to
describe his claims in great detail. He must set forth a
clear and simple statement of his claim against each
defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff fails to
satisfy this requirement because his allegations against
Haper are incoherent. Having failed to state a coherent
claim, the Complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiff shall be granted leave to file an amended
complaint, if he wishes to pursue this claim further.
However, he is bound by the Court's deadline and
instructions in the below disposition.
HEREBY ORDERED that the COMPLAINT (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED
without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
ORDERED that Defendant JOE HAPER is dismissed without
prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
ORDERED that, should he wish to proceed with this case,
plaintiff must: (1) file a Motion for Leave to Proceed in
forma pauperis that includes his updated financial
information for the 6-month period preceding this action
(September 1, 2017 through March 20, 2018) or prepay the full
$400.00 filing fee for this action consistent with the
instructions set forth in the letter from the Clerk of this
Court dated March 20, 2018 (Doc. 7), and no later than the
extended deadline of April 24, 2018; and (2) file a
First Amended Complaint by the same deadline of April 24,
2018. Failure to comply with this deadline or the
instructions set forth in the Clerk's letter (Doc. 7) and
this Order shall result in dismissal of this action with
prejudice for failure to comply with a court order and/or for
failure to prosecute his claims. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). See
generally Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir.
1997); Johnson v. Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir.
1994); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
plaintiff decide to file a First Amended Complaint, it is
strongly recommended that he use the forms designed for use
in this District for such actions. He should label the form,
“First Amended Complaint, ” and he should use the
case number for this action (i.e.,
18-cv-00590-DRH). The pleading shall present each claim in a
separate count, and each count shall specify, by
name, each defendant alleged to be liable under the
count, as well as the actions alleged to have been taken by
that defendant. Plaintiff should attempt to include the facts
of his case in chronological order, inserting each
defendant's name where necessary to identify the actors.
Plaintiff should refrain from filing unnecessary exhibits.
Plaintiff should include only related claims in his
amended complaint. Claims against different defendants that
are unrelated to one another will be severed into new cases,
new case numbers will be assigned, and additional filing fees
will be assessed.
amended complaint supersedes and replaces the original
complaint, rendering the original complaint void. See
Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am., 354 F.3d
632, 638 n.1 (7th Cir. 2004). The Court will not accept
piecemeal amendments to a complaint. Thus, the First Amended
Complaint must stand on its own, without reference to any
previous pleading, and plaintiff must re-file any exhibits he
wishes the Court to consider along with the First Amended
Complaint. The First Amended Complaint is subject to review
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
is further ADVISED that his obligation to pay the filing fee
for this action was incurred at the time the action was
filed, thus the filing fee of $400.00remains due and payable,
regardless of whether plaintiff elects to file a First
Amended Complaint. See 28 ...