“[M]ultiple 4 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[.]”
How later courts described this case
- “[M]ultiple 4 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[.]”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
DAVEON MOON, )
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 26-1221-SEM-DJQ
)
KEVIN MURRAY AND )
SERGEANT PEREZ, )
Defendants. )
ORDER
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Daveon Moon, proceeding pro se and currently in
custody at Menard Correctional Center, filed the original Complaint
(#1) in this case in the District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois. That court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (#33) on May 4,
2026, which made clear that the events in question occurred at
Pontiac Correctional Center. The matter was thereafter transferred
to this Court, which now proceeds to a merit review of Plaintiff’s
claims.
1
BACKGROUND
On January 9, 2024, Defendant Kevin Murray was
transporting Plaintiff to a mental health visit when he used
threatening and racially derogatory language toward Plaintiff.
Murray told Plaintiff that “[h]e knew about all the freaky things Sgt.
Perez do” and told Plaintiff that he did not like when “any of you
inmates file P.R.E.A. [Prison Rape Elimination Act] on any of my
officers.” Murray then threatened to have Plaintiff killed.
As Plaintiff and Murray walked to the mental health visit,
Murray fondled Plaintiff’s penis and backside then pushed Plaintiff
down the stairs. Plaintiff suffered injuries to his left knee, right
wrist, and hands.
Plaintiff filed a grievance against Murray. Later, however, his
counselor told him that “nothing had been filed” relating to Murray
or Perez. When Plaintiff inquired further, his counselor told him
that some staff members “feared these male staff,” such that they
would not act on grievances.
Analysis
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must “screen”
2
Plaintiff’s complaint and, through such process, identify and
dismiss any legally insufficient claim or the entire action if
warranted. A claim is defective 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.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted
as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
Plaintiff expressly lists three sets of claims in his Amended
Complaint: (1) an Eighth Amendment violation “for Sgt. Perez
sexually assaulting me”; (2) First and Eighth Amendment violations
against Murray; and (3) a due process violation for “ignoring my
multiple other grievance issues.”
Beginning with Murray, Plaintiff has clearly stated a claim for
3
excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff has
also stated a First Amendment retaliation claim, as he alleges that
Murray’s conduct was directly preceded by excoriating him for filing
a complaint against Perez. This permits a plausible inference that
Plaintiff’s grievance against Perez was “at least a motivating factor”
in Murray’s conduct. See Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 546 (7th
Cir. 2009).
Turning to Perez, the Court notes that while Plaintiff states in
his enumerated counts that Perez sexually assaulted him, little to
no description of that event is included in the body of the Amended
Complaint. Whatever happened with Perez appears to have
occurred some unknown period of days or weeks before the
allegations against Murray. While Plaintiff alleges Murray retaliated
against Plaintiff based on Plaintiff’s complaint about Perez, there is
no indication Perez was personally involved with anything that
occurred on January 9, 2024. If Plaintiff wants to pursue claims
against Perez, he must do so in a separate lawsuit. Such claims are
not properly joined with Plaintiff’s claims against Murray. See
George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“[M]ultiple
4
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[.]”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a).
Finally, Plaintiff does not name as a defendant any individual
who “ignore[ed]” his grievances. Moreover, “prisoners generally have
no constitutional right to an investigation of their grievances.”
Raney v. Moon, 2026 WL 1487855, at *2 (7th Cir. May 28, 2026).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. Pursuant to its review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint states Eighth Amendment excessive force and
First Amendment retaliation claims against Murray. Any additional
claims shall not be included in the case, except at the Court’s
discretion on motion by a party for good cause shown or pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
2. The Clerk is directed to DISMISS Sergeant Perez as a
Defendant in this case.
3. The Clerk is directed to effect service of process on
Murray pursuant to the Court’s standard procedures.
5
4. This case is now in the process of service. Plaintiff is
advised to wait until counsel has appeared for Defendant before
filing any motions in order to give 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 otherwise directed by the Court.
5. The Court will attempt service on Defendant by mailing
waivers of service to them. Defendant has sixty (60) days from the
date the waiver is sent to file an answer. If Defendant has not
filed answers or appeared through counsel within ninety (90) days
of the entry of this Order, Plaintiff may file a motion requesting the
status of service. After Defendant has been served, the Court will
enter an Order setting discovery and dispositive motion deadlines.
6. Defendant shall file an answer within sixty (60) days of
the date the waiver is sent by the Clerk. A motion to dismiss is not
an answer. The answer should include all defenses appropriate
under the Federal Rules. The answer and subsequent pleadings
6
shall be to the issues and claims stated in this opinion. In general,
an answer sets forth Defendant’s positions. The Court does not rule
on the merits of those positions unless and until a motion is filed by
Defendant. Therefore, no response to the answer is necessary or
will be considered.
7. This District uses electronic filing, which means that,
after defense counsel has filed an appearance, defense counsel will
automatically receive electronic notice of any motion or other paper
filed by Plaintiff with the Clerk. Plaintiff does not need to mail to
defense counsel copies of motions and other papers that Plaintiff
has filed with the Clerk. However, this does not apply to discovery
requests and responses. Discovery requests and responses are not
filed with the Clerk. Plaintiff must mail his discovery requests and
responses directly to Defendant’s counsel. Discovery requests or
responses sent to the Clerk will be returned unfiled, unless they are
attached to and the subject of a motion to compel. Discovery does
not begin until defense counsel has filed an appearance and the
Court has entered a Scheduling Order, which will explain the
discovery process in more detail.
7
8. Counsel for Defendant is hereby granted leave to depose
Plaintiff at his place of confinement. Counsel for Defendant shall
arrange the time for the deposition.
9. Plaintiff shall immediately notify the Court, in writing, of
any change in his mailing address and telephone number. Plaintiff’s
failure to notify the Court of a change in mailing address or phone
number will result in dismissal of this lawsuit, with prejudice.
10. If Defendant fails to sign and return a waiver of service
to the Clerk within thirty (30) days after the waiver is sent, the
Court will take appropriate steps to effect formal service through
the U.S. Marshal Service on Defendant and will require Defendant
to pay the full costs of formal service pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2).
11. The Clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified
protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act.
8
ENTERED June 15, 2026.
s/ Sue E. Myerscough
________________________________
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9