Wells

IN THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

SPRINGFIELD DIVISION

RONALD L. WELLS, SR.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:25-cv-03190-JEH

ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

Order

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an Amended Complaint under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at

Western Illinois Correctional Center (“Western”) and Illinois River Correctional

Center (“Illinois River”). (Doc. 10). This case is before the Court for a merit review

of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court must

“screen” Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and dismiss any legally insufficient claim

or the entire action if warranted. § 1915A. A claim is legally insufficient if it “(1) is

frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or

(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. In

reviewing the Amended Complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as

true, liberally construing them in the Plaintiff’s favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d

645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013). However, conclusory statements and labels are

insufficient. Enough facts must be provided to “state a claim for relief that is

plausible on its face.” Alexander v. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)

(citation omitted).

I

Plaintiff files suit against Defendants Illinois Department of Corrections

(“IDOC”), Latoya Hughes (IDOC Acting Director), Brittany Greene (Warden at

Western), Chance Jones (Warden at Illinois River), Cheryl Hinthorne (former

Warden at Illinois River), Houston (Correctional Officer at Western), Rusty Sarnes

(former Personal Property Officer at Illinois River), Krista Hammond (former

Mailroom Supervisor at Illinois River), Sean Mitchell (Correctional Counselor at

Illinois River), and Kellie Dennis (Grievance Officer at Illinois River).

Plaintiff did not name Karen Norman-Rees and Jane Doe (Video Writ

Officer) as Defendants in his Amended Complaint. Therefore, they are dismissed

without prejudice.

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, which consists of over 60 paragraphs, is

akin to a diary or log of alleged constitutional violations related to his personal

property, mail, and grievances.

Plaintiff alleges Defendant Houston, a Correctional Officer at Western, did

not properly inventory his property when he was transferred from Western to

Illinois River in July 2023. As a result, Plaintiff alleges some of his personal

property and legal documents pertaining to his ongoing criminal appeal and civil

case were lost or destroyed.

Plaintiff also alleges he did not have a fan in his cell at Illinois River during

a heat wave in July 2023 and had no container for water or ice. Plaintiff alleges

Defendant IDOC knew exposure to excessive heat was especially dangerous for

him because he has hypoglycemia and heat stroke syndrome. Plaintiff states his

adult children and friends contacted Defendant Warden Greene and informed her

that Plaintiff’s personal property had not arrived at Illinois River. They asked

Defendant Greene to locate and ship the property to Plaintiff, especially his fan.

On July 13, 2023, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Sarnes, a Personal Property

Officer at Illinois River, forced him to sign and backdate an inventory sheet falsely

stating that Plaintiff received all his property. Defendant Sarnes allegedly

threatened to write Plaintiff a disciplinary report if he did not sign the inventory

sheet. After Plaintiff returned to his cell and inspected his property, he discovered

some of his personal items and excess legal boxes were missing.

On August 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed an emergency grievance. On August 16,

2023, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Warden Hinthorne determined the grievance was

emergent, but Defendant Hinthorne violated IDOC Departmental Rule 504.80 by

waiting fifteen days to respond. As a result, Plaintiff alleges he was unable to file

a timely petition for leave to appeal in his criminal case and missed deadlines in

his civil case.

On August 31, 2023, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Grievance Officer Dennis

informed him that she recommended his emergency grievance should be denied

based on false statements from Defendant Sarnes.

Plaintiff also alleges Defendant Hammond, the Mailroom Supervisor at

Illinois River, stopped delivering his mail to and from his family, friends, and wife.

Plaintiff states his wife, who is also incarcerated, is his co-defendant in a criminal

case and co-plaintiff in a civil case. Plaintiff alleges he missed important deadlines

in their criminal and civil cases because his mail to and from the courts was not

being delivered until after the deadlines passed.

In December 2023, Plaintiff wrote to Defendants Hinthorne and Hammond

complaining that legal documents in his ongoing criminal and civil cases were

never delivered to him, but Defendants did not respond. As a result, Plaintiff filed

a grievance.

Between January 2024 and May 2024, Defendant Hammond allegedly

retaliated against Plaintiff by intercepting mail from his wife and removing

documents and photos.

On March 6, 2024, Plaintiff alleges he completed an authorization for

payment form to have $100.00 deducted from his prison trust fund account and

mailed to his wife. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Hammond further retaliated against

him by changing the dollar amount to $25.00.

Plaintiff filed a grievance against Defendant Hammond on March 23, 2024.

Plaintiff alleges Defendant Correctional Counselor Mitchell denied his grievance

and falsely claimed there was a Warden’s Bulletin setting the amount of money an

inmate can send to another inmate at $25.00. On May 28, 2024, Defendant Warden

Jones concurred with the denial of Plaintiff’s grievance. On June 6, 2024, Plaintiff

appealed the denial of his grievance to the Administrative Review Board (“ARB”)

and notified Defendant Acting Director Hughes he was being retaliated against.

Plaintiff alleges Defendant Hammond also retaliated against him by

confiscating and destroying a picture of his wife. Defendant Hammond allegedly

claimed Plaintiff was not authorized to receive a picture of his wife because she

was an inmate.

On June 6, 2024, Plaintiff spoke with Defendants Warden Jones and Hughes

when they were touring his cellhouse about Defendant Hammond’s retaliatory

conduct. Defendant Jones allegedly told Plaintiff to write to him and he would

address the matter. Plaintiff alleges he attempted to write a letter to Defendant

Jones, but Defendant Hammond intercepted it.

On June 17, 2024, Defendant Jones received Plaintiff’s emergency grievance

but did not deem it emergent, despite knowing Defendant Hammond was not

delivering Plaintiff’s mail. Plaintiff also claims Defendants Mitchell and Dennis

mishandled his grievance.

On July 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed another emergency grievance complaining

about a missing envelope he mailed to his wife. Plaintiff claims Defendants

Hammond and Dennis conspired to prevent Plaintiff from exhausting his

administrative remedies by holding his grievance appeal until after the 30-day

deadline lapsed.

II

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint includes multiple unrelated claims against

different Defendants. Unrelated claims against the same Defendant may be joined

in one action, but different Defendants can be joined in one action only if the claims

against them arise from the same series of transactions or occurrences. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 18, 20; Kadamovas v. Stevens, 706 F.3d 843, 846 (7th Cir. 2013) (court “can require

the plaintiff ‘to file separate complaints, each confined to one group of injuries and

defendants.’”) (quoted cite omitted); Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689

F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2012) (“A litigant cannot throw all of his grievances, against

dozens of different parties, into one stewpot. Joinder that requires the inclusion of

extra parties is limited to claims arising from the same transaction or series of

related transactions.”); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Thus

multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1

should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims

against different defendants belong in different suits….”).

Plaintiff’s claims are not properly joined in the same lawsuit. For instance,

his claim against Defendants Houston and Sarnes regarding his missing personal

property and excess legal materials is not properly joined with a claim against

Defendant Hammond, who allegedly retaliated against him by withholding his

mail, destroying a picture of his wife, and preventing him from sending $100 to

his wife. Likewise, a claim regarding the conditions of his confinement during a

heatwave in July 2023 is not properly joined with a claim against Defendants

Hughes, Jones, Mitchell, and Dennis for allegedly mishandling his grievances

regarding Defendant Hammond in 2024.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE as a violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20. Any

further amendment would be futile because Plaintiff has had multiple

opportunities to state an actionable claim and failed to do so.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1) Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE

as a violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20. The Court finds any

further amendment would be futile.

2) Defendants Karen Norman-Rees and Jane Doe are DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, as Plaintiff did not name them as Defendants in his

Amended Complaint.

3) The Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close this case.

4) Although this case has been dismissed, Plaintiff remains

responsible for paying the remainder of the $350 filing fee. (See d/e 7/30/2025).

5) If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he must file a notice of

appeal with this Court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P.

4(a). A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis MUST identify the issues

Plaintiff will present on appeal to assist the Court in determining whether the

appeal is taken in good faith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(c); see also Celske v.

Edwards, 164 F.3d 396, 398 (7th Cir. 1999) (stating that an appellant should be

allowed to submit a statement of the grounds for appealing so that the district

judge "can make a reasonable assessment of the issue of good faith"); Walker v.

O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 2000) (providing that a good-faith appeal is

an appeal that "a reasonable person could suppose . . . has some merit" from a

legal perspective). If Plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the

$605 appellate filing fee regardless of the outcome of the appeal.

It is so ordered.

Entered: November 17, 2025

s/Jonathan E. Hawley

U.S. District Judge