Ratliff v. Doe 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

RYAN RATLIFF,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 24-cv-1957-NJR

JOHN DOE #8, JOHN DOE #9, and

JOHN DOE #10,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROSENTENGEL, Chief Judge:

Plaintiff Ryan Ratliff, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections who is

currently incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center, brings this action for

deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Ratliff’s claim

regarding the conditions of his cell was severed from his claims in Ratliff v. Wexford Health

Sources, Inc., Case No. 24-cv-1598-GCS.

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

The allegations that form the basis of Ratliff’s claim in this severed case were set

forth in Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison’s Order of August 20, 2024 (Doc. 1). As it relates

to his conditions of confinement claim, Ratliff alleges that while in restrictive housing in

March 2023, he complained to John Doe #8 (lieutenant), John Doe #9 (sergeant), and John

Doe #10 about his ceiling leaking water (Id. at p. 4). Ratliff specifically showed John

Doe #8 the water on his floor and ceiling, but John Doe #8 refused to do anything about

the conditions (Id.). The following morning, Ratliff slipped on the water, causing him to

fall and injure his back. On March 22, 2023, Ratliff was transported to the emergency

room for his injuries (Id.).

Discussion

The Court finds it convenient to redesignate the severed count as follows:

Count 1: Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim

against John Doe #8, John Doe #9, and John Doe #10 for

failing to fix the water leak in Ratliff’s cell.

The parties and the Court will use this designation in all future pleadings and orders,

unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. Any other claim that is

mentioned in the Complaint but not addressed in this Order should be considered

dismissed without prejudice as inadequately pled under the Twombly pleading

standard.1

1 See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (an action fails to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face”).

At this stage, Ratliff adequately states a claim against John Doe #8, John Doe #9,

and John Doe #10 for the conditions of his cell (Doc. 1, p. 13). Thus, Count 1 shall proceed

against John Doe #8, John Doe #9, and John Doe #10. To help identify the unknown

officers, the Court adds Warden Jeremiah Brown, in his official capacity, for the purpose

of responding to discovery aimed at identifying the officers.

Disposition

For the reasons stated above, Count 1 shall proceed against John Doe #8, John Doe

#9, and John Doe #10. Warden Jeremiah Brown is ADDED as a defendant, in his official

capacity only.

The Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendant Jeremiah Brown (official capacity

only): (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 Defendant’s place of

employment. 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 of Court

shall take appropriate steps to effect formal service on him, and the Court will require

Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

Because Jeremiah Brown is only in the case for purposes of responding to

discovery regarding the unknown officers, he does not need to file an Answer. Once

counsel has entered his appearance for Brown, the Court will enter a scheduling order

for John Doe discovery.

If judgment is rendered against Ratliff, 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(6)(2)(A).

Finally, Ratliff 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 14 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: October 28, 2024 7 g ?

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's attorney will enter an appearance in the case. Once the defendant has

appeared, 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. 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.