United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
MICHAEL M. MIHM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated at the
Dixon Correctional Center, pursues a § 1983 action
alleging deliberate indifference, excessive force and
unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the Coles
County Jail (“Jail”). 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
March 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint against four
officers of the Coles County Jail in Charleston, Illinois.
Plaintiff alleges a variety of misconduct which occurred from
December 23, 2016, to August 10, 2017. Plaintiff makes a
variety of generalized claims, without identifying whom he
holds responsible for the infractions. He alleges that during
this time he was not provided mental health treatment, he did
not have a working toilet, he slept on the floor for a
prolonged period of time, that “medical” let him
bleed from a cut on his forehead, and that he could only
shower once per week. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant
White would not allow him contact with his family, not
indicating the date on which this occurred. He alleges that
Defendant Beadles applied handcuffs which were too tight,
again not identifying the date. Plaintiff also claims,
without identifying the timeframe, that Defendant Kastle
refused him basic needs such as water bathroom and healthcare
attention. He makes the additional claim that “all
Defendants” placed an ankle bracelet on him and
threatened to deliver a 100, 000 volt charge if he attempted
to interfere with it.
Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee during the events at issue,
his claims are reviewed under the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, rather than the Cruel and Unusual
Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Darnell v.
Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17 (2nd Cir. 2017). Under the
Fourteenth Amendment standard, a pretrial detainee need
establish that the defendant's conduct was objectively
unreasonable, not that defendant was subjectively aware that
it was unreasonable. Miranda v. County of Lake, 900
F.3d 335, 2018 WL 3796482, at *9 (7th Cir. 2018). Here,
however, many of Plaintiff's claims are too vague and
general to put any defendant on notice of the claims against
him. See McIntosh v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.,
2017 WL 1067782, at *5 (S.D.Ill. March 21, 2017)
(“plaintiff must make allegations that associate
specific defendants with specific claims, so the defendants
are put on notice of the claims brought against them and so
they can properly answer the complaint.”)
Plaintiff has made more specific complaints against
Defendants White, Beadles and Kastle, he does not plead when
the alleged events occurred and reveals that some of his
claims go back to December 23, 2016, outside the applicable
statute of limitations. See Draper v. Martin, 664
F.3d 1110, 1113 (7th Cir. 2011) ("[i]n Illinois, the
statute of limitations period for § 1983 claims is two
years, 735 ILCS 5/13-201”). “[A] court may
dismiss a claim as time- barred if the complaint sets forth
the necessary information to show that the statute of
limitations has expired. Davenport v. Dovgin, 545
Fed.Appx. 535, 538 (7th Cir. 2013).
Plaintiff is attempting to mis-join unrelated claims against
different individuals in one complaint. “[D]efendants
are properly joined in a single action only if they are
parties to a single transaction or occurrence common to all
defendants, and the claims against them involve a common
question of fact or law.” Ghashiyah v. Frank,
No. 05-0766, 2008 WL 680203, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 10, 2008).
See also, 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.”
complaint is dismissed, though he will be given an
opportunity, within 30 days, to file an amended complaint
consistent with the instructions in this order. Plaintiff is
particularly placed on notice that he is to identify when the
alleged misconduct occurred and the particular Defendants
whom he holds responsible.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. 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 will have 30 days from the entry of
this order in which to replead his claims. The pleading is to
be captioned Amended Complaint and is to include all of
Plaintiff's claims without reference to a prior pleading.
Failure to file an amended complaint will result in the
dismissal of this case, without prejudice, for failure to
state a claim.
2. Plaintiff files  a motion for recruitment of pro
bono counsel, indicating only that he contacted the
offices of one prospective attorney and has not heard back.
The Court finds this insufficient to establish that Plaintiff
made a reasonable effort to secure counsel on his own.
Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir.
2007).  is DENIED. In the event that Plaintiff renews his
motion for ...