“[U]ntil the defendants respond to the complaint, the plaintiff’s need for assistance of counsel . . . cannot be gauged.”
How later courts described this case
- “[U]ntil the defendants respond to the complaint, the plaintiff’s need for assistance of counsel . . . cannot be gauged.”
- a successful complaint generally alleges “the who, what, when, where, and how. . . .”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MALIK SHABAZZ, #R53189, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 23-cv-03005-SMY
)
ROB JEFFREYS, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Plaintiff Malik Shabazz, an inmate at Lawrence Correctional Center, brings this action for
alleged constitutional deprivations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1)
and Amended Complaint (Doc. 7) are now before the Court for review. Plaintiff asserts
miscellaneous claims against dozens of defendants in each complaint. He requests money
damages, a preliminary injunction (Doc. 9), and a temporary restraining order (Doc. 12).
This case is now before the Court for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
which requires the Court to screen prisoner complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims and
dismiss any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or seeks money damages from a defendant who by law is immune.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Here, before the Court screens the Complaint or Amended Complaint, it must
first determine whether any claims are improperly joined in one action and subject to severance.
See Dorsey v. Varga, 55 F.4th 1094 (7th Cir. 2022); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007).
Discussion
Standing alone or read together, Plaintiff’s Complaint and Amended Complaint (Docs. 1
and 7) represent an egregious violation of Rule 8 which requires a plaintiff to use “simple, concise,
and direct” allegations to set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a), (d)(1). Violation of the Rule is grounds for
dismissal.
Plaintiff’s Complaint totals 118 pages, names 40 defendants, and asserts innumerable
claims against them based on events arising at 2 prisons over the course of 20 months (July 2021
through March 2023). (Docs. 1, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint totals 299
pages, names 41-plus defendants,1 and asserts countless claims against them for events arising at
2 prisons over 26 months (July 2021 through September 2023). (Docs. 7, 7-1, and 7-2). Plaintiff
seeks to bring claims for failure to accommodate his disabilities, inadequate mental health
treatment, denial of medical care, discrimination, mail interference, mishandling of grievances,
retaliation, and excessive force, among other things, under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendments and Americans with Disabilities Act. (Docs. 1 and 7). Plaintiff sets forth too many
claims against far too many defendants for the Court to identify, list, or even summarize. And he
cannot toss all of his grievances against every IDOC official into a single document in order to
avoid payment of filing fees and strikes. Clearly, neither complaint complies with Rule 8.
To further complicate matters, Plaintiff requests the Court to read the complaints together
as a single document. But the Court will not accept piecemeal amendments to a previously filed
complaint. An amended complaint supersedes and replaces the original complaint, rendering the
1 Plaintiff’s list of defendants, alone, spans 22 pages of the Amended Complaint. (Doc. 7, pp. 1-22). The final
defendant is identified as “John/Jane Does” who are “Officers, Tactical Team Members, Nurses, etc.” employed by
the IDOC and Wexford Health Services. Id. at 22. Defendant #41 is not a single person.
original void. See Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., 354 F.3d 632, 638 n. 1 (7th Cir.
2004). Therefore, an amended complaint must stand on its own, without reference to any previous
pleading.
Plaintiff’s complaints also violate the rules of joinder. FED. R. CIV. P. 18-21. His claims
involve different defendants, arise from separate transactions or occurrences, and hinge on
different legal theories. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 prohibits a plaintiff from asserting
unrelated claims against different defendants or sets of defendants in the same lawsuit. Multiple
defendants may not be joined in a single action, unless the plaintiff asserts at least one claim to
relief against each defendant that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of
transactions or occurrences and presents a question of law or fact common to all. See FED. R. CIV.
P. 20; George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Instead, Plaintiff must decide which
related claims he will bring against the defendant(s), and he may file separate lawsuits to address
all other claims.2 Dorsey v. Varga, 55 F.4th 1094 (7th Cir. 2022).
Improper joinder is grounds for striking a complaint. Id. (recommending that district courts
faced with improper joinder problems strike a prisoner complaint and allow at least one
amendment before screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). Standing alone or together, Plaintiff’s
complaints (Docs. 1 and 7) present joinder problems that must be addressed before the Court can
screen this matter under § 1915A. The Court will give Plaintiff the first opportunity to decide
which claim(s) he wishes to pursue in this case.
Pending Motions
Motions for Recruitment of Counsel (Docs. 2 and 8)
Plaintiff’s Motions for Recruitment of Counsel are DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff
2 Plaintiff should be aware that a two-year statute of limitations applies to his § 1983 claims.
has not demonstrated that he is indigent or otherwise qualifies for court-recruited counsel under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Even if Plaintiff demonstrates that he is unable to afford counsel, the Court
will not consider recruiting counsel for a pro se plaintiff until it conducts a preliminary review of
the complaint and filters out nonmeritorious claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This is because it
is difficult to accurately evaluate the need for assistance of counsel at this early stage in litigation.
Kadamovas v. Stevens, 706 F.3d 843, 845 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[U]ntil the defendants respond to the
complaint, the plaintiff’s need for assistance of counsel . . . cannot be gauged.”). Accordingly, the
motions are denied.
Motions for Preliminary Injunction and TRO (Docs. 9 and 12)
Plaintiff’s Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order are
DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff seeks a transfer based on the events referred to in both
complaints which are being dismissed for violating Rules 8 and 18-21. Absent an underlying
complaint, the Court is unable to determine whether relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
65 is warranted.
Disposition
The Complaint (Doc. 1) and Amended Complaint (Doc. 7) are DISMISSED without
prejudice for violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedures 8 and 18-21 and with leave to file a
Second Amended Complaint by November 6, 2023. The Second Amended Complaint will be
subject to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Should Plaintiff file a Second Amended Complaint, it is strongly recommended that he use
the civil rights complaint form designed for use in this District. He should label the form
“Second Amended Complaint” and use the case number for this action (No. 23-cv-03005-
SMY). Plaintiff should identify each defendant in the case caption and include sufficient
allegations against each individual to describe what the defendant did or failed to do to violate his
constitutional rights, see DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F.2d 624, 627 (7th Cir. 1990) (a successful
complaint generally alleges “the who, what, when, where, and how. . . .”), and as much as possible,
include the relevant facts in chronological order, inserting each defendant’s name where necessary
to identify the actors and each defendant’s actions. To facilitate Plaintiff’s compliance with this
Order, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail him a civil rights complaint form.
An amended complaint supersedes and replaces prior versions of the complaint, rendering
prior versions void. See Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., 354 F.3d 632, 638 n. 1 (7th
Cir. 2004). Therefore, the Court will not accept piecemeal amendments to a previously filed
complaint. The Second Amended Complaint must stand on its own, without reference to any
previous pleading.
If Plaintiff fails to file a Second Amended Complaint within the allotted time or consistent
with the instructions set forth in this Order, the case will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to
state a claim for relief, failure to comply with a court order, and for failure to prosecute his claims.
The dismissal may count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of Court
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. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 5, 2023 s/ Staci M. Yandle_____
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge