United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MARCUS T. DIXON, #B-66674, Plaintiff,
WEXFORD MEDICAL SOURCE, JOHN BALDWIN, SARAH JOHNSON, JACQUELINE LASHBROOK, KIMBERLY BUTLER, JOHN TROST, HALEY DAVIS, GAIL WALLS, MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUI, TONYA SMITH, SHANE QUANDT, SGT. MIGNEREN, JOSE A. DELGADO, C/O RUCKER, C/O KORTE, LIEUTENANT ROBINSON, LIEUTENANT STOCK, KENT E. BROOKMAN, TERRANCE JACKSON, JASON N. HART, DR. ALT, NURSE SMITH, CENTRALIA CORR. CENTER, WESTERN ILLINOIS CORR. CENTER, and MENARD CORR. CENTER, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Marcus Dixon, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) currently incarcerated at
Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”), brings
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
for miscellaneous alleged violations of his constitutional
rights at 3 different IDOC facilities. (Doc. 1). He seeks
declaratory judgment, money damages, and injunctive relief.
(Doc. 1, p. 37).
Complaint is now before the Court for preliminary review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Section 1915A requires
the Court to screen prisoner Complaints and filter out
non-meritorious claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any
portion of the Complaint that is legally frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or requests
money damages from an immune defendant must be dismissed. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b). At this juncture, the factual
allegations are liberally construed. Rodriguez v.
Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir.
Complaint will be dismissed because it violates Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) requires
Complaints to include “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief” and “a demand for the relief
sought.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Rule 8(d) requires
“simple, concise, and direct” allegations in the
Complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). The purpose of the Rule is
to “give defendants fair notice of the claims against
them and the grounds for supporting the claims.”
Stanard v. Nygren, 658 F.3d 792, 797 (7th Cir. 2011)
(citing Killingsworth v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A., 507
F.3d 614, 618 (7th Cir. 2007); Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
flagrantly disregards Rule 8. The Complaint is far from
short, simple, or concise - it spans 63 pages and names 25
defendants for miscellaneous federal and state law
deprivations that occurred at 3 different IDOC facilities
over the course of 2 or more years. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-39; Doc.
1-1, pp. 1-16). It appears that Plaintiff has thrown every
grievance he has filed against prison officials over the
course of two years into a single document. For example,
Plaintiff complains about the following alleged
constitutional deprivations at Menard, among others:
inadequate medical care following brain surgery; denial of
treatment for injuries he sustained from various falls;
unconstitutional conditions of confinement in segregation
(multiple instances); mishandling of grievances; denial of
due process at multiple prison disciplinary hearings; and
various violations of the Illinois Administrative Code. He
complains of deprivations at Centralia that include, but are
not limited to, the following: denial of adequate follow-up
care for an endoscopy; an assault by prison guards; denial of
treatment for his related injuries; denial of medical care
for injuries he sustained in numerous falls, and deprivation
of personal property. Plaintiff also includes complaints that
arose at Western Illinois Correctional Center, including the
denial of treatment for chronic pain; denial of treatment for
internal bleeding; denial of an MRI; denial of prescription
refills, and denial of bloodwork.
includes other allegations that he does not associate with
any particular IDOC facility. He complains of criminal
charges that were brought against him in Chilton County
Criminal Court for aggravated battery of a lieutenant at an
undisclosed facility (likely Menard) in 2017. He mentions
other claims without identifying where or when they arose
(given his frequent transfer between IDOC facilities, the
Court will not try to guess).
Plaintiff asserts claims of deliberate indifference to
medical needs, unconstitutional conditions of confinement,
due process violations, deprivations of his protected liberty
interests, deprivations of personal property, excessive
force, failure to intervene, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, assault, battery, and violations of the
Illinois Administrative Code.
seeks a preliminary injunction to address his lingering
medical issues, including lingering hip pain, lower back
pain, a limp, head pain, stomach pain, and poor vision. But
it is unclear whether he still suffers from these conditions
or who is responsible for currently denying treatment for
length alone does not typically warrant dismissal of a
Complaint, unintelligibility and a lack of organization do.
Stanard, 658 F.3d a 797-98; Garst, 328 F.3d
at 378. Plaintiff has buried potentially viable claims in a
poorly organized, overly complicated Complaint. The Court
cannot expend judicial resources searching for colorable
claims. The onus is on Plaintiff to articulate his claims.
also violates the rules of joinder by throwing all of his
grievances together in a single Complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P.
18-21; Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689
F.3d 680 (7th Cir. 2012) (“A litigant cannot throw all
of his grievances, against dozens of different parties, into
one stewpot.”). This will result in severance of his
unrelated claims into separate lawsuits, for which he will
owe a filing fee and may also incur a “strike”
within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
foregoing reasons, the Complaint does not survive preliminary
review and will be dismissed for noncompliance with Rule 8.
Plaintiff will have an opportunity to file an amended
complaint if he wishes to proceed with this case. However,
failure to do so according to the instructions and deadline
in the below disposition may result in dismissal of this
action with prejudice and a “strike” within the
meaning 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaint (Doc. 1) is
DISMISSED without prejudice for violation of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Plaintiff is
GRANTED leave to file a “First Amended
Complaint” on or before July 8, 2019.
Should Plaintiff fail to file his First Amended Complaint
within the allotted time or consistent with the instructions
in this Order, the entire case shall be dismissed 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, ...