Lewis v. Awada

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JERRY LEE LEWIS, )

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 20-1395

)

LYNETTE BOUGHMAN, et. al, )

Defendants. )

MERIT REVIEW ORDER

JAMES E. SHADID, U.S. District Judge:

This cause is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to

Amend and Motion to Meet the Responsibilities of the U.S. District Court. [ 21, 22]

The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s original complaint for failure to clearly articulate

a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A and as a violation of Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 8 and 10. See December 9, 2020 Merit Review Order. The Court was unable

to decipher the intended claims in Plaintiff’s 223-page document. However, the Court

allowed Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint along with directions to

assist him. Plaintiff was specifically admonished he “must not include any exhibits,

but instead he must clearly state each claim in the body of his complaint. “December 9,

2020 Merit Review Order, p. 4. Plaintiff was also advised he could not include

unrelated claims against different Defendants in one lawsuit. See George v Smith, 507

F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is granted pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. [21]. Plaintiff’s 90-page Amended Complaint

ignores most of the Court’s directions. The Court is unsure what Plaintiff intended with

the first 11 pages which include a confusing combination of Defendants and potential

violations. Plaintiff mentions problems with the law library, the cancelation of a class

he was taking, a fabricated disciplinary report, inadequate food, etc.

Page 12 of the proposed amended complaint is the first page of the complaint

form the Court provided to Plaintiff. The next six pages list additional Defendants

which appear to be different than those mentioned in the first 11 pages.

The Court has attempted to decipher Plaintiff’s intended medical claims listed on

pages 20-21 without success.

For instance, three times has I been rushed to health care. For trying to

digest agricultural products…that’s not been verify as being purity

and germination label guarantees. These samples that fail to pass are

declared illegal. And stop-sale orders are initiated. upon harvest for the

presence of mycotoxins, a mold that can potentially be harmful to animals

and human being. (Amd. Comp., p. 21).

Plaintiff then has a five page section entitled “relief requested” in which he asks

for more qualified Medical Staff Members, better dental staff, investigations of the food

provided, nutritionally adequate food, a school academy, an adequate law library,

better staff training, other investigations, eliminate private contracts, etc. (Amd. Comp.

22-27).

The remaining pages are a mix of exhibits and documents which appear to

identify additional claims. (Amd. Comp. 28-90) .

Plaintiff’s separate, Motion to Meet Responsibilities with the U.S. District Court

is a rambling account of other difficulties with Plaintiff’s incarceration including issues

with the grievance procedure. [22].

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not correct any of the errors noted in the

first complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires all complaints to include “a

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). In other words, “Rule 8(a) requires parties to make their pleadings

straightforward, so that judges and adverse parties need not try to fish a gold coin from

a bucket of mud.” United States ex rel. Garst v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378

(7th Cir. 2003). Although a district court is “not authorized to dismiss a complaint

merely because it contains repetitious and irrelevant matter, ... dismissal of a complaint

on the ground that it is unintelligible is unexceptional. Length may make a complaint

unintelligible, by scattering and concealing in a morass of irrelevancies the few

allegations that matter.” Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); see also

Fields v. Godinez, 2018 WL 2416578, at *2 (S.D.Ill. May 25, 2018). Therefore, Plaintiff’s

amended complaint is dismissed.

“[D]istrict courts have a special responsibility to construe pro se complaints

liberally and to allow ample opportunity for amending the complaint when it appears

that by so doing the pro se litigant would be able to state a meritorious claim.” Donald v

Cook County Sheriff’s Dept., 95 F.3d 548, 555 (7th Cir. 1996). However, “these general

principles have some limits.” Stanard v. Nygren, 658 F.3d 792, 801 (7th Cir. 2011) Leave

to replead will not be allowed after “repeated failure to cure deficiencies by

amendments previously allowed.” Foman v Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); see also

Stanard, 658 F.3d at 801 (7th Cir. 2011)(dismissed after plaintiff “had three opportunities

to file a complaint that complied with the rules, yet he failed to follow basic instructions

from the court.”); Lyon v. Brown, 1998 WL 246685 at 2 (7th Cir. May 12, 1998)(dismissed

after court allowed plaintiff third opportunity to cure specific deficiencies and warned

final opportunity to correct deficiencies).

Based on Plaintiff’s amended complaint, it is not clear Plaintiff will be able to

cure the deficiencies in his pleading. Nonetheless, in an abundance of caution since

Plaintiff mentions problems with medical care, the Court will allow Plaintiff one FINAL

opportunity to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is admonished he MUST follow the

Court’s directions. Plaintiff MUST NOT include any exhibits. Instead, Plaintiff’s

second amended complaint must begin with the first page of the complaint form

provided to him. Plaintiff should list all intended Defendants ONE time in the portion

of the complaint entitled “Parties.”

After identifying his Defendants, Plaintiff should include his claims in numbered

paragraphs. Each paragraph should state what happened, when and where it

happened, and who was involved. For instance, if Plaintiff is alleging he was denied

medical care for a serious medical condition, he should first identify the medical

condition. Plaintiff should concisely state why he needed care, who he asked, when

and how he asked, what response he received, and any impact it had on his condition.

Finally, Plaintiff is again admonished unrelated matters and different sets of

defendants cannot be litigated in the same lawsuit pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 18 and 20. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 606, (7th Cir. 2007)(“multiple

claims against a single party are fine, but a Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be

joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.) If Plaintiff continues to include

exhibits and ignore the Court’s specific directions, his case will be dismissed with

prejudice.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend is granted pursuant to Federal Ruel of

Civil Procedure 15. [21].

2) Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed for failure to clearly articulate a

claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A, as a violation of Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 8 and 10, and for failure to follow the Court’s orders.

3) Plaintiff’s Motion to Meet Responsibilities with the U.S. District Court is

denied. [22].

4) The Court will allow Plaintiff one FINAL attempt to clarify his claims. If

Plaintiff wishes to file a second amended complaint, he must file his complete,

proposed complaint within 21 days or on or before February 22, 2021.

PLAINTIFF MUST NOT INCLUDE EXHIBITS. If Plaintiff fails to file his

complaint on or before February 22, 2021 or fails to follow the Court’s directions,

his case will be dismissed with prejudice.

5) The Clerk is to provide Plaintiff with a blank complaint form and reset the

internal merit review deadline within 30 days of this order.

ENTERED this 1st day of February, 2021.

s/James E. Shadid

_________________________________________

JAMES E. SHADID

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE