The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ADAM SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 23-cv-1297-NJR
C/O KNIGHT, C/O JOHN DOE 1,
C/O JOHN DOE 2, and
ANTHONY WILLS,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff Adam Smith, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections currently
incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, filed this civil rights action pro se under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Smith was allowed to proceed on claims related to his conditions of confinement in
segregation and the risk of harm presented by officers spreading rumors about the nature of
his crimes (Doc. 7).
This matter is now before the Court on motions filed by Smith. Smith first filed a
motion for the Court to order the mail room to mail out his grievance appeals (Doc. 78). He
subsequently filed a motion to compel a ruling on that motion (Doc. 80). Recently, he filed a
motion to amend his Complaint in order to add class action claims (Doc. 81).
A. Motion Regarding Grievances
As to his motion for Court Order regarding grievances, Smith alleges that on July 24,
2023, he sent two grievance appeals to the Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) (Doc. 78).
He believes that mailroom supervisor Charles Mattingly seized the documents instead of
mailing them to the ARB. Smith alleges that Mattingly purposely withheld the appeals in an
attempt to prevent Smith from exhausting his claims in this case. In his recently filed motion
to compel ruling (Doc. 80), Smith alleges that the grievances are still in Mattingly’s possession
and will now be deemed late if received by the ARB. He asks that the Court order the ARB
to accept the grievances as timely filed.
Simply put, Smith is not entitled to the relief he requests. He seeks an order directing
Charles Mattingly to mail his appeals and an order directing the ARB to accept the appeals,
but neither Mattingly nor any member of the ARB is a party in this case. Further, his claims
regarding his grievances are unrelated to the claims in this case. The claims in this case relate
to Smith’s conditions of confinement and protection from other inmates. To the extent Smith
believes he is being retaliated against by officials confiscating grievances, those are new
claims against new individuals that would have to be filed in a new lawsuit.
Smith also argues he is now unable to exhaust his claims in this case, but the Court
notes that exhaustion is a precondition to filing suit. Ford v. Johnson, 362 F.3d 395, 398 (7th Cir.
2004); Perez v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Corr., 182 F.3d 532, 535 (7th Cir. 1999). Thus, Smith should
have already exhausted his grievances prior to filing his Complaint. If he believes officials at
the prison improperly confiscated grievances making the grievance process unavailable, he
may certainly argue that point in response to a dispositive motion on the issue of exhaustion,
should the defendants file one in this case. See Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 809 (7th Cir.
2006).
For the reasons stated, Smith’s motion for Court Order (Doc. 78) is DENIED. Smith’s
motion to compel Court Order (Doc. 80) is DENIED as moot.
B. Motion to Amend
Smith also filed a motion to amend his Complaint in order to add class action
allegations (Doc. 81). Smith argues that two inmates identified as witnesses, who previously
offered affidavits in this case, were recently fired from their prison jobs. Smith maintains that
this action was in retaliation for the inmates supporting Smith. He also alleges a conspiracy
to frustrate his litigation. Smith seeks leave to amend his Complaint in order to add his
witnesses as plaintiffs and to add a class action claim against the defendants. The Court
DENIES Smith's request. The Court already informed Smith that his requests to amend the
Complaint would not be entertained until all defendants have entered the case and the Court
enters a scheduling order setting forth deadlines for amended pleadings.
Further, Smith’s proposed claim, a conspiracy retaliation claim, is a new claim
unrelated to the claims in this case. He also fails to allege that any of the named defendants
participated in this conspiracy or were responsible for his witnesses being fired from their
inmate jobs. Nor has he indicated his witnesses’ willingness or desire to participate as
plaintiffs in this new claim. To the extent Smith alleges that he and others are now being
retaliated against, he would have to file a new lawsuit after first attempting to exhaust his
administrative remedies. His request to amend his Complaint with this new, unrelated claim
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 30, 2023 Tl
pip owstgl
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge
Page 3 of 3