“[T]he alleged mishandling of [a prisoner’s] grievance by persons who otherwise did not cause or participate in the underlying conduct states no claim.”
How later courts described this case
- “[T]he alleged mishandling of [a prisoner’s] grievance by persons who otherwise did not cause or participate in the underlying conduct states no claim.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOQUWON GARCIA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 20-cv-926-NJR
)
)
PAMELA S. SCOTT, CHRISTOPHER )
THOMPSON, CARLA MCBRIDE, )
MARCUS MYERS, S. MERCIER, J. )
REID, DEBBIE KNAUER, and JOHN )
DOES, )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL,ChiefJudge:
Plaintiff Joquwon Garcia, who at the time he filed his Complaint was an inmate of the
Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) at Pinckneyville Correctional Center, brings this
action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. In his Complaint
(Doc. 1), Garcia alleges he was retaliated against in violation of the First Amendment. He also
alleges a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under state law.Heseeks declaratory
judgment and monetary damages.
This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1915A.Under Section1915A, the Court is required to screen prisoner complaints to filter
out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a). Any portion of a complaint that is legally
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks for money
damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C.
§1915A(b).
The Complaint
Garcia makes the following allegations in the Complaint (Doc. 1): On October 16, 2019,
while at Murphysboro Correctional Center, Garcia received a disciplinary report from Pamela S.
Scott for sexual misconduct (Id. at pp. 9 and 13). Although he admits he had his hands down his
pants, he was scratching because of a rash and not pleasuring himself. At the adjustment committee
hearing, he explained to McBride and Myers that he had an untreated itching problem,but he was
found guilty of sexual misconduct (Id. at p. 9). He later received treatment for the rash. He wrote
a grievance to clear his name,but it was rejected.
After the finding of guilt, Garcia wasidentified as a sexual pervert by officers and inmates
(Doc. 1, p. 9). He was transferred to Pinckneyville Correctional Centeron the same day he received
the ticket where he was harassed by John Doe guards in segregation. He was given a filthy, worn
mattress and denied adequate clothing, bedding, and hygiene items until he left segregation. They
also heckled him and told others he was a sexual pervert. He believes that the segregation officers
took these actions in retaliation for filing the grievance to try to clear his name (Id. at p. 10). He
went the winter without adequate clothing and bedding. He wrote a grievance about the lack of
items, but Mercier denied the grievance in violation of the grievance procedures. Specifically, he
held the grievance in excess of 90 days before submitting his decision to the warden (Id.).
Garcia alleges that because he has been labeled a sexual pervert by the guards, he suffered
emotionally and physically (Doc. 1, p. 11). He lost weight, cried for hours, questioned his
sexuality, and contemplated suicide (Id.).
Discussion
Simply put, Garcia’s Complaint fails to state a claim. Garcia seeks to allege two counts:
Count 1: Intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against Defendants for
labeling him a sexual pervert.
Count 2: First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants for refusing to
provide him with basic necessities including clothes, bedding, and
hygiene items in retaliation for filing a grievance.
Although Garcia identifies Scott, McBride, and Myers as defendants, he fails to allege that
they retaliated against him or subjected him to intentional infliction of emotional distress. Garcia
alleges that Scott wrote the sexual misconduct ticket and McBride and Myers found him guilty on
the ticket, but he fails to allege that it was those officers who labeled him a sexual pervert and
caused him emotional distress. Further, there is no indication that they retaliated against him
because his Complaint alleges retaliation only bytheunknown segregation officers.
He also fails to state a claim against Christopher Thompson, J. Reid, and Debbie Knauer.
He lists them as defendants in the caption of his Complaint but fails to allege that they participated
in any way in the violation of his constitutional rights in his statement of claim. He identifies
Thompson as the warden of Pinckneyville, J. Reid as his counselor, and Knauer as an
administrative review board member. Although he alleges that his grievance was rejected by
grievance officials (Doc. 1, p. 9), the simple denial of a grievance does not amount to a
constitutional violation. He also alleges that Mercier failed to follow proper procedures in denying
his grievance, but those allegations also fail to state a claim. Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953
(7th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he alleged mishandling of [a prisoner’s] grievance by persons who otherwise
did not cause or participate in the underlying conduct states no claim.”); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d
605, 609-10(7th Cir. 2007).
Garcia does allege that John Doe segregation officers retaliated against him and subjected
him tointentional infliction of emotional distress by heckling him and referring to him as a sexual
pervert. But Garcia names a group of individuals which is improper.1 He notes that there are
“several” segregation officers that participated in the retaliation and caused him emotional distress,
but he does not know their names (Id. at pp. 4 and 11). He fails, however, to even indicate the
number of officers that were involved in the improper conduct. To state a Section 1983 claim
against an individual or entity, Garciamust specifically identify them, by name or Doe designation.
See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Thus, the
unknown officers are also DISMISSED without prejudice.
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Garcia’s Complaint (Doc. 1). Should Garcia want to
pursue his claims, he will need to file an Amended Complaint. A successful Complaint generally
alleges “the who, what, when, where, and how…” See DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d 624, 627
(7th Cir. 1990). Should he file an Amended Complaint, Garciashould include sufficient allegations
against each defendant to describe what the defendant did or failed to do to violate his
constitutional rights. If hedoes not know the name of a specific defendant, he should refer to them
by a John Doe designation (i.e., John Doe #1 segregation officer, etc.).
Disposition
For the reasons stated above, Garcia’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Garcia is GRANTEDleave to file a “First Amended Complaint” on or beforeJanuary 14, 2021.
Should he fail to file his First Amended Complaint within the allotted time or consistent with the
instructions set forth 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. App. P. 41(b). See
1 Group defendants create problems with service of process. See Jenkins v. Wisconsin Res. Ctr., No. 09-
CV-323-BBC, 2009 WL 1797849, at *1 (W.D. Wis. June 24, 2009) (a group of people cannot be sued;
each defendant must be an individual or legal entity that may accept service of a complaint) (citing Fed.R.
Civ.P. 4(e)-(j)).
generally Ladien vy. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Johnson v. Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466
(7th Cir. 1994); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
An amended complaint supersedes and replaces the original complaint, rendering the
original complaint void. See Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., 354 F.3d 632, 638 n. 1
(7th Cir. 2004). The Court will not accept piecemeal amendments to the original Complaint. Thus,
the First Amended Complaint must stand on its own, without reference to any previous pleading,
and Garcia must re-file any exhibits he wishes the Court to consider along with the First Amended
Complaint. The First Amended Complaint is subject to review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Garcia is further ADVISED that his obligation to pay the filing fee for this action was
incurred at the time the action was filed, thus the filing fee remains due and payable, regardless of
whether he elects to file a First Amended Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); Lucien v.
Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998).
Finally, Garcia is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of
Court and each opposing party informed of any change in his address; the Court will not
independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later than 7 days
after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this Order will cause a
delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in dismissal of this action for want of
prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 12/14/2020
me Rion?
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge