supervisors are not liable for the errors of their subordinates
How later courts described this case
- supervisors are not liable for the errors of their subordinates
- supervisor liability not permitted under § 1983
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JARYAN GILLS, )
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 21-4166
)
ROBERT HAMILTON, 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, had identified ten Defendants from East Moline
Correctional Center (EMCC) including Warden Robert Hamilton, Correctional Officer
Decker, Correctional Officer Argo, Librarian Kranz, Maintenance Worker Arbuckle,
Major West, Major Macksy, Mailroom Workers Gillies, Counselor Ayla Lucus, and
Administrative Review Board Member Debbie Knauer.
Plaintiff’s 64-page complaint with exhibits is a clear violation of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. For instance, Federal Rule 8 requires a complaint to include “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief.” See Fed.R.
Civ.P. 8(a)(2). In addition, a Plaintiff cannot combine unrelated claims against different
Defendants in one lawsuit. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 18, 20. “[M]ultiple claims against a single
party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated
Claim B against Defendant 2.” George v Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). A
prisoner may not dodge the filing fee or three strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. §1915(g) by
attempting to file separate claims in one lawsuit.
For instance, Plaintiff begins with information concerning an inmate assault
which resulted in a left arm injury. While Plaintiff refers to this as an ongoing injury, it
appears he may be restating claims in one of his other pending lawsuits: Gills v.
Hamilton, Case No. 21-4011. If this is a new claim, Plaintiff needs to explain the
difference and clearly identify his Defendants, specific allegation, and timeframe.
Plaintiff also discusses unconstitutional living conditions, interference with his
legal mail or documents, a failure to protect, retaliation, inappropriate use of restraints,
etc. Plaintiff must choose which claims he wishes to pursue in this lawsuit.
In addition, many of Plaintiff’s allegations fail to provide a specific factual basis.
For instance, who was involved and when did the event occur?
Plaintiff is also reminded he may not sue an individual simple because that
individual is a supervisor. See Smith v. Gomez, 550 F.3d 613, 616 (7th Cir. 2008)
(supervisor liability not permitted under § 1983); Pacelli v. DeVito, 972 F.2d 871, 877 (7th
Cir. 1992)(supervisors are not liable for the errors of their subordinates). Instead,
Plaintiff must name individuals who were personally involved in the allegation. “A
defendant is personally responsible ‘if the conduct causing the constitutional
deprivation occurs at his direction or with his knowledge and consent.’” Wilson v.
Warren Cty., Illinois, 830 F.3d 464, 469 (7th Cir. 2016), quoting Gentry v. Duckworth, 65
F.3d 555, 561 (7th Cir. 1995).
Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, but the Court will allow Plaintiff an
opportunity to file an amended complaint clarifying his intended claims. Plaintiff
MUST abide by these guidelines:
1) Plaintiff must NOT include unrelated claims against different defendants in
one lawsuit.
2) Plaintiff must not include case law or an overview of claims. Instead, he must
state each claim only one time to avoid confusion.
3) For each claim, Plaintiff must include a brief statement indicating which
Defendants were involved, when it occurred, where it occurred, and a brief
statement of what happened.
4) Plaintiff must not include exhibits.
Plaintiff has also filed a Moton for Appointment of Counsel. [5]. The motion is
denied with leave to renew after Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint clarifying his
claims. [5]. In addition, Plaintiff must demonstrate he has made some attempt to find
counsel to represent him in this case such as a copy of letters either sent or received or a
list of attorneys contacted. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007); Eagan v.
Dempsey, 2021 WL 456002, at *8 (7th Cir. 2021).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed as a violation of Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 8, 18, 20. See also George v Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
2) Plaintiff must file an amended complaint in compliance with the order
on or before April 25, 2022. If Plaintiff fails to file an amend complaint by the
deadline or fails to follow the Court’s directions, his case will be dismissed.
3) The Clerk of the Court is to reset the internal merit review deadline within 30
days of this order and provide Plaintiff with a blank complaint form.
ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2022.
s/ James E. Shadid
____________________________________________
JAMES E. SHADID
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE