The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
UDELL ROGERS, )
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) No. 21-4048
)
KWAME RAOUL, et. al., )
Defendants )
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
JAMES E. SHADID, U.S. District Judge:
This cause is before the Court for merit review of the Plaintiff’s complaint. The
Court is required by 28 U.S.C. §1915A to “screen” the Plaintiff’s 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. §1915A.
Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, claims his constitutional rights were violated at Hill
Correctional Center by Defendants Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, Illinois
Department of Corrections (IDOC) Director Rob Jeffreys, Illinois Prisoner Review Board
(PRB) Chairman Craig Findley, Clinical Services Representative Dorrie Love, Clinical
Services Director Chad Schuldt, Caseworker Stanley Simonson, Field Services
Representative Lloyd Sichling, Correctional Officer Roy Little, and Officers John or Jane
Doe.
Plaintiff has provided two separate complaint forms. The first complaint
includes vague claims alleging the Defendants were “unnecessarily cruel” because they
did not assist him in finalizing a parole location, they “falsified reasons” to move
Plaintiff to segregation, and otherwise made it difficult for him to obtain Mandatory
Supervised Release. (Comp, p. 6).
The second complaint also includes general allegations that Plaintiff’s proposed
family sites were denied, and he was “wrongfully” placed in segregation. (Comp., p.
15). Plaintiff further mentions he was convicted of an unspecified sexual offense and
then notes his overall opinions about the parole process for sex offenders.
Plaintiff has failed to provide enough information to put either the Court or the
Defendants on notice of his specific claims. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. For instance, the Plaintiff
provides no specific time frames except to say he first inquired about parole in July of
2018. Plaintiff does not indicate how each Defendant was involved, nor does he state
what each Defendant specifically did to violate his constitutional rights.
In addition, “[f]or a defendant to be liable under section 1983, she must be
personally responsible for the alleged deprivation of the plaintiff's constitutional
rights.” Mitchell v. Kallas, 895 F.3d 492, 498 7th Cir. 2018). “The personal-involvement
requirement is satisfied if the constitutional violation occurs at a defendant's direction
or with her knowledge or consent.” Id. An individual is not liable simply because she is
a supervisor. See Taylor v. Ways, 999 F.3d 478, 493 (7th Cir. 2021). Therefore, it is unclear
how the Attorney General, the IDOC Director, or Jane or John Doe officers would have
any direct involvement in parole decisions.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted and as a violation of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
The Court will allow Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint
clarifying his specific claims. Plaintiff must use one complaint from and must list his
allegations only one time. Plaintiff’s amended complaint should include numbered
paragraphs. Each paragraph should briefly describe what happened, when it occurred,
and who was involved. For instance, who placed Plaintiff in segregation, when, and
why? Did Plaintiff receive a disciplinary ticket? Did he appear before the Adjustment
Committee?
In addition, does Plaintiff’s conviction have an impact on his parole status?
Finally, Plaintiff should limit his complaint to his specific claims against each
named Defendant and not general opinions. This helps prevent confusion over his
intended claims.
Plaintiff has also filed two motions for appointment of counsel. [5, 10]. The
motions are denied with leave to renew after Plaintiff clarifies his intended claims.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A and as a violation of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8.
2) The Court will allow Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint
clarifying his claims. Plaintiff must follow the instructions provided and must
file his proposed amended complaint within 21 days or on or before October 13,
2021. If Plaintiff ignores the Court’s instructions or he fails to file his amended
complaint on or before October 13, 2021, his case will be dismissed.
3) Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel are denied with leave to renew
after Plaintiff clarifies his intended claims. [5, 10].
4) Plaintiff is reminded he must immediately notify the Court in writing of any
change in his mailing address and phone number. Failure to provide this
information could lead to the dismissal of Plaintiff’s lawsuit. [2].
5) The Clerk of the Court is to provide Plaintiff with a blank complaint form to
assist him and to reset the internal merit review deadline within 30 days.
ENTERED this 21st day of September, 2021.
s/ James E. Shadid
____________________________________________
JAMES E. SHADID
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE