Lowman v. Watson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JOSEPH D. LOWMAN, MONTE J.

CONRAD, JR., DEVONTE T.

FRANKLIN, SR., CHRISTOPHER T.

FARR, MAURICE FULLER, DEVIN

HARRIS, JERMEL D. WARE, SR., DAX

A. BALDRIDGE, FRED DUCK,

DEMARKUS REID, and MONTEL

HARKINS,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 23-cv-373-NJR

RICHARD WATSON, TAMMY GRIME,

ST. CLAIR COUNTY JAIL, COLLINS,

BROWN, MOORE, MESSY, WRIGHT,

and BROWN,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:

Plaintiffs Joseph D. Lowman, Christopher Farr, Monte Conrad, Jr., Devonte

Franklin, Sr., Maurice Fuller, Devin Harris, Jermel Ware, Sr., Dax Baldridge, Fred Duck,

Demarkus Reid, and Montel Harkins, who—at the time they filed their Complaint—were

all housed at the St. Clair County Jail, bring this action for deprivations of their

constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On February 8, 2023, the Court entered an Order pursuant to Boriboune v. Berge,

391 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 2004), advising the plaintiffs about the risks, obligations, and costs

associated with group litigation (Doc. 5). Each plaintiff was given an opportunity to

withdraw from the case or to sever his claims into an individual action that would be

subject to a filing fee in lieu of the filing fee charged in this action. Each plaintiff also was

warned that failure to respond would result in his dismissal from the lawsuit (Doc. 5,

p. 5). As of this date, Devin Harris and Fred Duck have failed to file a notice in writing

indicating their desire to proceed as a plaintiff in this litigation. Thus, Harris and Duck

are DISMISSED without prejudice as plaintiffs in this case.

This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Complaint

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). 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

Plaintiffs allege that while housed at the St. Clair County Jail they have

experienced various issues with the conditions and quality of care at the jail.

Air Quality

Starting on January 31, 2022, and continuing thereafter on a regular basis, officers

Chambers, Brown, Moore, and Wright, whom the plaintiffs allege were under the

supervision of Tammy Grime, ignored requests and grievances to fix a hole in the wall.

During the summer, wasps were able to enter the facility, exposing inmates to possible

allergic reactions. In winter, freezing air from the outside entered the cell block (Id. at

p. 10). Despite verbal protests, defendants indicated that they did not care, and it was not

their problem to handle. Wright specifically stated that he would slap one of the plaintiffs

if he continued to complain. The Complaint fails to indicate to which plaintiff Wright

directed his comments.

Exercise

Plaintiffs also allege that while at the St. Clair County Jail, officers under the

supervision of Tammy Grime failed to provide them with the proper amount of exercise

and outside time (Id. at p. 10). Although it is not clear how much exercise each plaintiff

has received, the Complaint suggests that five hours of recreation time has been provided

in the last 12-month period (Id.).

Food

From January 31, 2022, until October 31, 2022, the plaintiffs experienced various

issues with their food. Plaintiffs allege that kitchen staff, under the supervision of Tammy

Grime, to include Mary and Floyd, served under-portioned and sometimes overcooked

beans, eggs, and rice. Plaintiffs allege that on a number of occasions they were served

rotting salad and raw bread dough (Id. at pp. 10-11). Some of the plaintiffs developed

nausea, stomach pains, gas, and sickness (Id. at p. 11).

Medical Claims

On October 4, 2022, medical staff, under the supervision of Tammy Grime, ignored

sick call passes from September 4, 2022 (Id. at p. 11). Some plaintiffs were also denied

treatment for oral bleeding, cracked teeth, and pain (Id.).

Safety and Security

Plaintiffs also allege that maintenance staff, under the direct supervision of

Tammy Grime, failed to repair broken toilets, faucets, and doors (Id. at p. 11). Plaintiffs

were exposed to potential harm and diseases due to the failure to repair broken items

throughout the jail.

Tortious Environment

On November 12, 2022, Officer Brown, under the direct supervision of Tammy

Grime, purposely slammed gates in the jail during sleeping hours (Id. at p. 12). She

continued with her conduct on other night shifts, which the plaintiffs believe was because

she expected that they would file a lawsuit and in response to their protests. Plaintiffs

allege that Brown created a “hostile environment” in the cell block.

Further Submissions

In addition to the formal Complaint, the Court directed each individual plaintiff

to submit a notice that he wished to proceed as a plaintiff in the joint litigation. Some of

the notices included additional information regarding the experiences of the individual

plaintiffs. Montel Harkins submitted a notice indicating that the extreme temperatures

aggravated his gunshot wound (Doc. 6). He also received under-portioned trays with

overcooked meat, little recreation time, and poor air quality that affected his nasal issues

and caused him sore throats. He was also unable to obtain medical care for his gunshot

wounds and broken left arm (Doc. 6).

Dax Baldridge filed a notice indicating that cold drafts through the walls

aggravated a previous spinal fusion (Doc. 7). He also received beans for every meal which

caused him bloating (Id.). He requested an additional bed mat for his medical condition

but did not receive a prompt response (Id.). The air quality aggravated his sinuses and

allergies, and he lacked recreational time to stretch his back.

Monte J. Conrad noted in his response that the extreme temperatures caused his

“feet to go dead” due to a bullet wound in his foot (Doc. 10). He had to eat cold beans

four times a week which caused him to use the bathroom more than usual. The air quality

caused his nose to bleed and made sleeping difficult. He only received five hours of

recreation over five months because individuals were sleeping in the gym.

Demarkus Reid noted in his response that the jail was unsafe due to gates not

being able to lock (Doc. 11). Reid also received limited recreation due to the jail housing

inmates in the gym. He also received under-portioned meals, which were often cold or

undercooked. He suffered from a broken tooth, but he was not put on the list for a dental

visit (Id.).

Jermel D. Ware experienced undercooked and under-portioned meals. He noted

that the trays often had dishwater still on them. He indicated that the cellblock was cold,

and the limited ventilation irritated his sinuses (Doc. 12). He documented only five or six

visits to the gym during the six months he had been housed at the jail. He also

experienced maintenance issues, noting the dayroom toilet did not flush properly.

Devonte T. Franklin Sr. noted dust-clogged vents which irritated his sinuses and

cold air in the cellblock (Doc. 13). Franklin alleged that the meal trays did not meet a

2,000-calorie diet, and his bread was often wet. He noted only five hours of recreation

time due to individuals being housed in the gym. He also alleged that his toilet was

broken and that the tables used for mealtime had peeling paint and rust (Id.).

Christopher T. Farr alleged that he was denied medical care, noting he placed

numerous sick call requests with no response (Doc. 16). He received only five hours of

recreation time over the course of six months. He also experienced under-portioned and

overcooked meals. He experienced extreme temperatures causing his bones to ache and

poor air quality which caused nasal issues and a sore throat.

Discussion

Simply put, the plaintiffs fail to state a claim pursuant to Section 1915A. There are

a number of issues with the Complaint. First, although the plaintiffs identify a number of

individuals in their case caption, they fail to tie the majority of the defendants to the stated

claims. Defendants Richard Watson, Collins, and Messy are only mentioned in the case

caption; there are no allegations against them in the statement of claim. Thus, the

plaintiffs fail to state a claim against these defendants.

Further, St. Clair County Jail is not a proper defendant. The jail is not a “person”

amendable to suit under Section 1983. Dye v. Wargo, 253 F.3d 296, 299 (7th Cir. 2001).

Plaintiffs have not named St. Clair County, itself, as a defendant but have named Sheriff

Richard Watson in his official capacity. But the plaintiffs can only proceed against the

sheriff in his official capacity, or the county, if the government entity caused the

deprivation of their constitutional rights. See also Flores v. City of South Bend, 997 F.3d 725,

731 (7th Cir. 2021) (citing Dunn v. City of Elgin, 347 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Monell

v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978))). Such liability arises from (a) an express

policy calling for a constitutional violation; (b) a widespread practice of constitutional

violations that was so permanent and well settled as to constitute custom or usage with

the force of law; or (c) a constitutional violation caused by a person acting with final

policymaking authority for the body. Monell, 436 U.S. at 694; McCormick v. City of Chi.,

230 F.3d 319, 324 (7th Cir. 2000). Plaintiffs fail to identify any policy or practice at the jail

that caused their constitutional violations.

Plaintiffs also identify Tammy Grime as a defendant, noting that various officers

acted under her supervision. They allege Grime is liable for all of the conditions that they

faced while at the St. Clair County Jail because she was the supervisor of the various

officers that the plaintiffs complained to about conditions at the jail. But Grimes cannot

be liable merely as a supervisor of other officers because the doctrine of respondeat superior

(supervisory liability) does not apply to actions filed under Section 1983. See Kinslow v.

Pullara, 538 F.3d 687, 692 (7th Cir. 2008). Plaintiffs also have not alleged that Grimes was

aware of or failed to address the conditions at the jail.

Finally, the plaintiffs name a number of officers that they spoke to about the hole

in the wall which allowed cold air into the cellblock, but they fail to provide any specifics

as to which plaintiffs voiced their concern, when and to whom they voiced their concern,

and the response of each officer. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007)

(Complaint must state “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”);

DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d 624, 627 (7th Cir. 1990) (Complaint must include “the

who, what, when, where, and how…”). They further allege that Officer Brown closed

gates loudly. But the annoyance, although perhaps unprofessional, does not appear to

amount to a constitutional violation. See DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 612 (7th Cir. 2000)

(verbal harassment does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment). Plaintiffs also

have not properly alleged that Brown sought to retaliate against them by her actions.

Thus, the Complaint fails to state a claim.

Joinder of Plaintiffs

Further, the Court finds that joinder of these unrepresented plaintiffs is not

appropriate. “[C]omplaints filed by multiple prisoners [can proceed] if the criteria of

permissive joinder are satisfied.” Boriboune v. Berge, 391 F.3d 852, 855 (7th Cir. 2004).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(1) allows plaintiffs to join together if they assert

claims that arise “out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or

occurrences” and which have common questions of law or fact. The allegations in the

Complaint are generic and vague, indicating that the plaintiffs take issue with a number

of conditions at the jail. But their individual notices indicate that each plaintiff

experienced some, but not all, of the conditions raised in the Complaint. Some of the

plaintiffs experienced issues with the temperatures and food, but not medical care, while

others experienced issues with medical care but not dental care. Some plaintiffs failed to

note any issues with maintenance. Further, the Court finds that each plaintiffs’ individual

experiences as to medical care and their individual experiences in the jail would present

differing questions of fact and law which make the claims improper for joinder.

In addition to Rule 20, the Seventh Circuit has recognized the district court’s

discretion to consider “other relevant factors in a case in order to determine whether the

permissive joinder of a party will comport with the principles of fundamental fairness.”

Chavez v. Ill. State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 632 (7th Cir. 2001) (quotations and citations

omitted).

None of the plaintiffs in this case are lawyers, and none of them may represent any

of the other plaintiffs. Because of this, each plaintiff must read and sign every filing. This

requirement can prove difficult for incarcerated and/or detained individuals who may

be housed in different locations, be transferred, or released during the course of the

proceedings. When plaintiffs are no longer housed together, it may be impossible to

obtain each other’s signatures. The difficulty of obtaining every other plaintiff’s signature

has already been demonstrated through recent filings in this case. An exhibit submitted

on behalf the plaintiffs on March 3, 2023, only documented ten of the eleven plaintiffs

(Doc. 17). An affidavit submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs was signed by only five

plaintiffs (Doc. 19). On May 16, 2023, Plaintiff Lowman submitted a motion requesting

the status of his filings and seeking a preliminary injunction (Doc. 21). None of the other

plaintiffs signed the motion, nor is there any indication that Lowman informed them of

his filing. Thus, the other plaintiffs are presumably unaware of Lowman’s requested

relief. Further, one of the original plaintiffs, Devon Harris, has already been transferred

or released from St. Clair County Jail (Doc. 20).

In addition to the issues with logistics in pursuing their claims as a group, these

plaintiffs are in a county jail where they may by pre-trial detainees, convicted prisoners,

or a mixture of both. The legal standards for those classes of inmates are different. See

Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S.Ct. 2466, 2473 (2015); Smith v. Dart, 803 F.3d 304, 309 (7th

Cir. 2015) (Fourteenth Amendment for pre-trial detainees); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.

825, 834 (1994) (Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment standard).

Thus, the Court concludes that joinder is not appropriate in this case. See FED. R.

CIV. P. 20(a)-(b); FED. R. CIV. P. 21; Chavez v. Ill. State Police, 351 F.3d 612, 632 (7th Cir.

2001). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, a court may “add or drop a party.

The court may also sever any claim against a party.” FED. R. CIV. P. 21. Consistent with

Rule 21, the Court shall enter an order in the disposition below that allows each

remaining plaintiff to proceed in a separate action as follows:

(1) Joseph Lowman, who has been identified as the lead plaintiff in this case,

shall proceed as the only plaintiff in this action going forward. He is

DIRECTED to file an Amended Complaint and a Motion to Proceed IFP

that focuses on his own claims.

(2) Chris Farr, Monte Conrad, Devonte Franklin, Maurice Fuller, Jermel Ware,

Dax Baldridge, Demarkus Reid, and Montel Harkins shall be DISMISSED

as plaintiffs in this case, and no filing fee shall be assessed against them for

this action. To the extent they wish to proceed as to their own, individual

claims, they may file separate lawsuits. They are reminded that they will be

obligated to pay the filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis in their own case.1

Pending Motions

Recently Lowman submitted a letter which the Court construed as a motion to

confirm receipt of mailing and a motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 21). As to his

request for a confirmation of the receipt of affidavits and evidence, the Court has received

1 The Court notes that it does not appear that the two-year statute of limitations in Section 1983

cases has run against any plaintiff, nor will any plaintiff be prejudiced by their dismissal from

this action.

numerous filings from the plaintiffs. The Court also received a joint declaration with

evidence (Doc. 19), but the Court does not retain physical evidence, such as wasps and

other insects, for the parties. To the extent that Lowman has any physical evidence in his

possession he should retain the evidence for his own records.

To the extent that Lowman seeks an “immediate injunction,” his motion does not

specify what relief he seeks, and he has not demonstrated that he is entitled to any

preliminary relief. Thus, his motion (Doc. 21) is DENIED.

Disposition

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs Devin Harris and Fred Duck are

DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s Orders under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiffs Chris Farr, Monte Conrad, Devonte

Franklin, Maurice Fuller, Jermel Ware, Dax Baldridge, Demarkus Reid, and Montel

Harkins are also DISMISSED without prejudice. No filing fee shall be assessed against

these plaintiffs, and the dismissal shall not constitute as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

To the extent they wish to proceed as to their own, individual claims, they may file

separate lawsuits. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send each individual a Section

1983 Complaint form. Each plaintiff must pay the filing fee for his own cases or submit a

motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

Only Joseph D. Lowman shall proceed as a plaintiff in this case. The Clerk of Court

is DIRECTED to change the caption of the case to reflect the remaining parties.

Lowman’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted. His motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

(Doc. 2) is DENIED as moot because it fails to focus solely on Lowman’s financial

position. To the extent Lowman seeks to proceed as a pauper, he would need to submit a

new motion with his amended pleading.

Lowman is GRANTED leave to file a “First Amended Complaint” on or before

July 6, 2023. Should Lowman 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. CIV. P. 41(b). See generally Ladien v. 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). The

dismissal shall count as one of Lowman’s three allotted “strikes” under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g).

Lowman is also reminded that he must focus his Amended Complaint on related

claims against a single group of defendants. Continuing to pursue numerous, unrelated

claims against various individuals could result in the severance of the unrelated claims

into several different lawsuits; that action may result in a surplus of filing fees and

potential strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.

2007); Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011).

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 Lowman 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.

Lowman 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 Lowman 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, Lowman 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 seven 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: June 8, 2023

Tawa AM loeniting J

NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL

Chief U.S. District Judge

13