it is appropriate to dismiss a defendant if he is named, but there is no sufficient allegation of personal involvement
How later courts described this case
- it is appropriate to dismiss a defendant if he is named, but there is no sufficient allegation of personal involvement
- the decision to appoint counsel depends on the difficulty of the case and plaintiff’s competency to represent him or herself
- dismissal is allowed for failure to comply with a court order
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DORVELL GOGINS, M03439, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
ROB JEFFREYS, ) Case No. 21-cv-1201-DWD
SCOTT THOMPSON, )
BART TOENNIES, )
BRANDON WESTBROOK. )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Dorvell Gogins, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(IDOC), brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations
of his constitutional rights at Centralia Correctional Center (Centralia). (Doc. 1). Plaintiff
alleges that his rights have been violated because he has been in a “limited movement”
cell for more than five months without due process. He seeks declaratory and monetary
relief.
Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is now before the Court for preliminary review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, the Court is required to screen
prisoner complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b).
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). At this juncture,
the factual allegations of the pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. Rodriguez v.
Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
The Complaint
Plaintiff alleges that on April 13, 2021, he was released from segregation after 28
days, but upon release the segregation officer told him he was being moved to the
“limited movement housing unit.” (Doc. 1 at 5). He alleges that the limited movement
status means he has limited access to rehabilitation, a job, or leisure activities. He is
forced to live in a cell alone and he has to be escorted everywhere. He also alleges that
he cannot earn good time credit as a result of his status because his was unable to
complete a career tech class. He claims that the Adjustment Committee did not sentence
him to limited movement status, and he has not had any periodic review of his placement.
He further alleges that this status is not listed as a potential punishment in the Centralia
Orientation Manual.
Plaintiff claims that prior to segregation he was “A-grade” status, which gave him
access to all institutional privileges. He claims that the deprivation of these privileges is
a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and Equal Protection.
Analysis
Plaintiff’s Complaint is insufficient for one major reason. Plaintiff has not clearly
described the personal actions of each individual defendant. To state a valid § 1983 claim,
a plaintiff must establish that a defendant was personally responsible for the deprivation
of a constitutional right. Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561 (7th Cir. 1995). Here,
Plaintiff has not mentioned any of the defendants by name in the factual allegations of
his complaint. If a defendant is named in the caption of a case, but no claim is presented
against that defendant in the body text, the claim may be dismissed without prejudice as
to that defendant. See Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395, 1401 n. 8 (7th Cir. 1994) (it is appropriate
to dismiss a defendant if he is named, but there is no sufficient allegation of personal
involvement). Plaintiff needs to describe each defendant’s personal role in violating his
constitutional rights.
With an opportunity to amend, it is possible that Plaintiff could state a valid claim
concerning the conditions of his confinement. The Court will allow Plaintiff an
opportunity to amend his complaint with the benefit of the information discussed in this
Order. If Plaintiff chooses to amend, he should carefully describe the personal actions of
each person he names as a defendant. Plaintiff will have 30 days from the date of this
Order to file an Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint will completely replace
the earlier complaints. See Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., 354 F.3d 632, 638 n. 1
(7th Cir. 2004). Failure to submit an Amended Complaint on time could result in the
dismissal of this entire lawsuit for failure to state a claim or failure to prosecute. FED. R.
CIV. P. 41(b); Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1056-57 (7th Cir. 1997) (dismissal is allowed for
failure to comply with a court order); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Pending Motions
Plaintiff filed a motion for recruitment of counsel at the time he filed his case. (Doc.
4). In his motion, Plaintiff requests the assistance of counsel because he alleges that his
mental state has deteriorated as a result of his limited movement confinement. Plaintiff
also indicated that he had completed some college education, and that he attempted to
contact attorneys for assistance on his own behalf. The Court understands Plaintiff’s
concerns, but at this early stage the Plaintiff is doing a fine job representing himself. His
complaint is clear and organized. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 655 (7th Cir. 2007) (the
decision to appoint counsel depends on the difficulty of the case and plaintiff’s
competency to represent him or herself). The case is not yet at a level of complexity that
requires assistance. If the Plaintiff runs into problems litigating his case as things
progress he may renew his request for counsel at a later time. For now, Plaintiff’s motion
for counsel will be DENIED without prejudice.
Plaintiff also has a pending Motion Service of Process at Government Expense.
(Doc. 3). This motion is unnecessary. Plaintiff has been granted in forma pauperis status,
so if his case proceeds beyond initial review, service will be directed at Court expense.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Service (Doc. 3) will be DENIED as moot.
Disposition
Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file an Amended Complaint within 30 days of this
Order. To assist him with preparing an amended complaint, the Clerk of Court is
directed to mail Plaintiff a copy of the standard civil rights complaint form along with
this Order. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, his case may be dismissed for
failure to state a claim or failure to prosecute.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Counsel (Doc. 4) is DENIED without prejudice.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Service at Government Expense (Doc. 3) is DENIED as
moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 25, 2022 /s David W. Dugan
______________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge