The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SHELDON OLIVER,
#2786-045,
Plaintiff, Case No. 22-cv-00056-SPM
v.
FCI-GREENVILLE,
E. WILLIAMS,
ASSOC. WARDEN CHEEKS,
ASSOC. WARDEN SANTIAGO,
CAPT. GORE,
LT. PHILLIPS,
GOODFIELD,
MRS. ELDERS,
NURSE BROWN,
NURSE KELLEY,
NURSE MAXEY, and
NURSE WILLIAMS,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MCGLYNN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Sheldon Oliver, an inmate in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and
currently being held at the federal medical center located in Lexington, Kentucky (FMC
Lexington), commenced this action by filing a demand letter to FCI Greenville staff directing them
to rebut allegations in his affidavit regarding COVID-19 procedures. (Doc. 1). The Court struck
the document, as it was an inadequate complaint. Plaintiff was granted leave to file a valid signed
complaint. (Doc. 7). Plaintiff timely filed a complaint, which was dismissed for failure to state a
claim to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court gave Plaintiff another opportunity to replead his claims in
an amended complaint. The First Amended Complaint was also dismissed without prejudice. (Doc.
21). Plaintiff was offered one more chance to amend his pleadings.
Plaintiff has filed a Second Amended Complaint that is now before the Court for
preliminary review pursuant to Section 1915A. (Doc. 22). Any portion of the Second Amended
Complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or requests money
damages from an immune defendant must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b).
DISCUSSION
In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that he contracted COVID-19 because
staff did not follow proper safety and sanitation procedures. (Doc. 22, p. 6). As a result of suffering
from COVID-19, he coughs “black (blood clots) stuff and blowing [his] nose with same thing.”
Additionally, Plaintiff still does not have a sense of taste or smell. He seeks $500,000 in damages
for not following safety protocols. (Id. at p. 7).
Unfortunately, Plaintiff has again failed to state a claim. He does not assert any allegations
against the Defendants, and they are not identified anywhere in his statement of claim. As Plaintiff
has been previously instructed, a successful complaint must associate specific defendants with
specific claims, so that defendants are put on notice of the claims brought against them and so they
can properly answer the complaint. (Doc. 21, p. 3) (citing See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007); FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2)). Where a plaintiff has not included a defendant in
his statement of the claim, the defendant cannot be said to be adequately put on notice of which
claims in the complaint, if any, are directed against him. Furthermore, merely invoking the name
of a potential defendant is not sufficient to state a claim against that individual. See Collins v.
Kibort, 143 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a viable claim
against the Defendants.
The Court also notes that, as pled, Plaintiff cannot obtain damages for an Eighth
Amendment conditions of confinement claim. A “conditions-of-confinement claim based on
alleged failures to take precautions to protect incarcerated persons from COVID-19” would be an
expansion of Bivens, and as the Court has stated, special facts counsel against applying Bivens to
this type of claim. (Doc. 21, p. 4-5) (quoting Hill v. Healy, No. 22-CV-203-PP, 2022 WL 3213260,
at *5 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 9, 2022)). Because Plaintiff has not articulated a plausible federal claim
against a defendant, the Second Amended Complaint cannot proceed and must be dismissed.
Plaintiff has been given three chances to cure deficiencies in his pleadings and has been
unable to state a viable claim for relief. The Court finds that it would be futile to allow further
amendments. The dismissal will be with prejudice, and Plaintiff will not be given another
opportunity to file an amended complaint. See Arreola v. Godinez, 546 F. 3d 788, 796 (7th Cir.
2008).
DISPOSITION
For the reasons stated above, the Second Amended Complaint and this entire action are
DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff may appeal this Order by filing a notice of appeal with this Court within thirty
days of the entry of judgment. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A). If he does choose to appeal, he will be
liable for the $505.00 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. See FED. R.
APP. P. 3(e); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724, 725-26 (7th Cir. 2008);
Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 858-59 (7th Cir. 1999); Lucien v. Jockish, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th
Cir. 1998). Moreover, if the appeal is found to be nonmeritorious, Plaintiff may also incur a
“strike.” A proper and timely motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) may
toll the 30-day appeal deadline. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(4). A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed no more
than twenty-eight (28) days after the entry of the judgment, and this 28-day deadline cannot be
extended.
The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 2, 2023
s/Stephen P. McGlynn
STEPHEN P. MCGLYNN
United States District Judge