“[T]he alleged mishandling of [a prisoner’s] grievance by persons who otherwise did not cause or participate in the underlying conduct states no claim.”
How later courts described this case
- “[T]he alleged mishandling of [a prisoner’s] grievance by persons who otherwise did not cause or participate in the underlying conduct states no claim.”
- The two-fold inquiry asks (1) has the indigent plaintiff made a reasonable effort to obtain counsel or been effectively precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty of the case, does the plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself.
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BILLY MILES,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 23-cv-3568-NJR
DAVID W. MITCHELL, PEARCY
MYERS, S. BROWN, C. HALE,
ADEWALE KUFORIJI, and ROB
JEFFREYS,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff Billy Miles, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”)
who is currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, brings this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of his constitutional rights while at Pinckneyville
Correctional Center (“Pinckneyville”).1
1 This Complaint is one of 13 that the Court recently received and filed over the course of two
days. For ease of comprehension as the Court manages these cases, and any potential future cases,
it will assign the cases basic numeral identifiers as follows: Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-
3562-NJR (“Miles 1”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3563-NJR (“Miles 2”), Miles v. Mitchell,
et al., Case No. 23-cv-3564-NJR (“Miles 3”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-2365-NJR (“Miles
4”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-2366-NJR (“Miles 5”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No.
23-cv-3567-NJR (“Miles 6”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3568-NJR (“Miles 7”), Miles v.
Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3569-NJR (“Miles 8”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3570-
NJR (“Miles 9”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3571-NJR (“Miles 10”), Miles v. Mitchell, et
al., Case No. 23-cv-3572-NJR (“Miles 11”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3579-NJR (“Miles
12”), Miles v. Mitchell, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3580-NJR (“Miles 13”).
The 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
In his Complaint, Miles makes the following allegations: From December 14, 2021,
until January 5, 2022, Miles was in the Pinckneyville healthcare unit for a blocked artery
in his left leg (Doc. 1, p. 6). On January 5, 2022, Miles requested a lower deck and lower
bunk permit, but Dr. Myers refused his request (Id.). Every time Miles sought to raise the
issue of the need for a lower deck and lower punk permit, Dr. Myers would reply “one
thing at a time” (Id.). Dr. Myers further informed Miles that only inmates with seizures
received the requested permit (Id.). Dr. Myers discharged Miles from the healthcare unit
with his left leg still swollen and sore.
Miles also alleges, as he does in all of his recently filed cases, that IDOC has
mandated tactical training for all staff members (Doc. 1, p. 6). Miles contends that IDOC’s
training has been weaponized against Miles and that he will be met with aggression (Id.).
Unfortunately, he fails to further explain how the tactical training has been used against
him or how the allegations relate to his claims regarding his medical care.
Discussion
At this stage, Miles states a viable Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Myers for
failing to provide him with medical permits or proper care for his clogged artery. He fails,
however, to state a claim against the warden, director, or any of the grievance officials.
These officials cannot be held liable simply as high-ranking officials who oversee
employees because supervisory liability does not apply to actions under Section 1983. See
Kinslow v. Pullara, 538 F.3d 687, 692 (7th Cir. 2008). Nor can those individuals who simply
responded to grievances be liable for Miles’s medical claims. Thus, David W. Mitchell,
S. Brown, C. Hale, Adewale Kuforiji, and Rob Jeffreys are DISMISSED without
prejudice.
Simultaneously with his current pleading, Miles filed several other cases about
various aspects of his incarceration at Pinckneyville. He raises claims regarding damage
to his property (Miles 1), medical care he received (Miles 2, Miles 7, Miles 8, Miles 10, and
Miles 11), and access to property and other items (Miles 3, Miles 4, Miles 5, Miles 6, Miles
9, Miles 12, and Miles 13). In addition to his individual allegations, each Complaint also
includes allegations regarding a mandate by IDOC and Pinckneyville requiring staff to
obtain tactical training. Miles also alleges that grievance officials have edited his
grievances. He fails, however, to allege that these actions violated his constitutional rights
or caused him any harm. Although he alleges that staff can use tactical training against
him and he will be “met with aggression,” there are no allegations to suggest that any
defendant has used excessive force against him. Nor has he indicated how any defendant
edited his grievance or how those “edits” violated his rights. The mere mishandling or
denial of a grievance does not state a claim. Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir.
2011) (“[T]he alleged mishandling of [a prisoner’s] grievance by persons who otherwise
did not cause or participate in the underlying conduct states no claim.”); George v. Smith,
507 F.3d 605, 609-10 (7th Cir. 2007).
Further, these potential claims appear to be unrelated to the claims in his current
lawsuit. To the extent he believes his rights have been violated by the implementation of
tactical training or issues with his grievances, he would have to file a new case about
these distinct allegations. Miles also would be subject to an additional filing fee and
possible “strike” should the claims be deemed frivolous or fail to state a claim. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Thus, based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court designates that
following count, which survives review pursuant to Section 1915A:
Count 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Dr. Pearcy Myers for failing to provide Miles with a lower
bunk, lower deck permit and for failing to properly treat his
clogged artery.
Pending Motions
As to his motion for counsel (Doc. 2), Miles indicates that he has some education
but does not specify why he believes counsel is necessary in this case. He states that he
does not speak, write, or read English very well, but he fails to indicate the level of his
language or writing abilities. Nonetheless, his filings have been easy to read and
understand.
Miles also does not indicate whether he tried to obtain counsel on his own. Under
the portion of the form motion directing Miles to declare whether he has contacted any
attorneys for representation he simply wrote “N/A”. (Id. at p. 1). Thus, it is not clear
whether Miles has made any attempt to contact counsel or if he has been prevented from
doing so by staff. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007) (The two-fold inquiry
asks (1) has the indigent plaintiff made a reasonable effort to obtain counsel or been
effectively precluded from doing so; and if so, (2) given the difficulty of the case, does the
plaintiff appear competent to litigate it himself.). Miles’s motion for counsel is, therefore,
DENIED. Should Miles choose to move for recruitment of counsel in the future, the Court
DIRECTS him to (1) contact at least three attorneys regarding representation in this case
prior to filing another motion, (2) include in the motion the name and addresses of at least
three attorneys he has contacted, and (3) if available, attach the letters from the attorneys
who declined representation. Miles should also include in his motion a specific statement
as to why he believes recruitment of counsel is necessary in this case.
Disposition
For the reasons stated above, Count 1 shall proceed against Dr. Pearcy Myers. All
other defendants and claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendant Pearcy Myers: (1) Form 5 (Notice
of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of
Service of Summons). The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail these forms, a copy of the
Complaint, and this Memorandum and Order to the defendants’ place of employment as
identified by Miles. If defendant fails to sign and return the Waiver of Service of
Summons (Form 6) to the Clerk within 30 days from the date the forms were sent, the
Clerk shall take appropriate steps to effect formal service on defendant, and the Court
will require the defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized
by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
If the defendant can no longer be found at the work address provided by Miles,
the employer shall furnish the Clerk with the defendant’s current work address, or, if not
known, defendant’s last-known address. This information shall be used only for sending
the forms as directed above or for formally effecting service. Any documentation of the
address shall be retained only by the Clerk. Address information shall not be maintained
in the court file or disclosed by the Clerk.
Defendant is ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the
Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(g).
Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 244, Defendant need only respond to the issues
stated in this Merit Review Order.
If judgment is rendered against Miles, and the judgment includes the payment of
costs under Section 1915, he will be required to pay the full amount of the costs, regardless
of whether his application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(f)(2)(A).
Finally, Miles 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: November 17, 2023 71 g a
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge
Notice to Plaintiff
The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the defendant of your lawsuit and
serve him with a copy of your complaint. After service has been achieved, the defendant
will enter an appearance and file an Answer to your Complaint. It will likely take at least
60 days from the date of this Order to receive the defendant’s Answer, but it is entirely
possible that it will take 90 days or more. When the defendant has filed an Answer, the
Court will enter a Scheduling Order containing important information on deadlines,
discovery, and procedures. Plaintiff is advised to wait until counsel has appeared for the
defendant before filing any motions, to give the defendant notice and an opportunity to
respond to those motions. Motions filed before defendant’s counsel has filed an
appearance will generally be denied as premature. Plaintiff need not submit any
evidence to the Court at this time, unless specifically directed to do so.