Order Form (01/2005)

Case: 3:11-cv-50202 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/30/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:71

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge

Frederick Kapala 11 C 50202

Sitting Judge if Other than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER CASE TITLE

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

DATE

September 30, 2011

Byron Edward Adams (101) vs. John Varga

The proposed amended complaint (Dkt. No. 8), is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is granted thirty days to submit a proposed amended complaint (plus a Judges copy and service copies) limited to a single, core claim in accordance with this order. The clerk is directed to provide the plaintiff with an amended civil rights complaint form and instructions for filing along with a copy of this order. Failure to submit a proposed amended complaint within thirty days will result in summary dismissal of this case. Plaintiffs renewed motion for appointment of counsel and motion to reconsider the prior denial of appointment of counsel (Dkt. Nos. 7, 9), are denied. O[ For further details see text below.]
Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT Pro se plaintiff Byron Edward Adams is a detainee at the Lee County Jail. He previously submitted a complaint alleging a number of civil rights claims against officials at the jail pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. (Dkt. No. 1). He alleged: In October 2010, Correctional Officer Olivia Phillips harassed him by patting her butt towards plaintiff and telling him to kiss her big fat white ass. Since November 28, 2010, Nurse Sandy Lewis has failed to provide him proper medical care by denying him a diabetic meal. On March 31, 2011, Correctional Officer Dave Janssen opened his legal mail and wrote on the front and back of the envelope. On April 28, 2011, Nurse Brandy Stern failed to measure plaintiffs blood sugar as required for his diabetes. Stern told plaintiff that she simply forgot to take the measurement. Plaintiff disagrees and alleges that Stern intentionally failed to take the blood sugar level in retaliation for a reprimand that the Jail received regarding the opening of plaintiffs legal mail. On May 20, 2011, plaintiff wrote a grievance to Assistant Warden Doug Carlson alleging that Officer John Edwards threatened to shoot him with a gun. Carlson allegedly threw the grievance away in response. On May 31, 2011, plaintiff found a bug in his cereal. He reported it to Janssen and Carlson who failed to take any corrective actions.
Page 1 of 3

11C50202 Byron Edward Adams (101) vs. John Varga

Case: 3:11-cv-50202 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/30/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:72 STATEMENT (Dkt. No. 1). On initial review, the Court granted plaintiff IFP status but dismissed his complaint pursuant to George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007). George requires that unrelated claims against different defendants to be brought in separate lawsuits. In response, plaintiff has brought the present proposed amended complaint (Dkt. No. 8), listing these prior claims. The present complaint only names Lee County Sheriff John Varga as the sole defendant and deletes the other previously named defendants. This appears to be an attempt to comply with George by limiting his case to one defendant. This is equally ineffective. Section 1983 lawsuits against individuals require personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation to support a viable claim. Palmer v. Marion County, 327 F.3d 588, 594 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Zimmerman v. Tribble, 226 F.3d 568, 574 (7th Cir. 2000); Zentmyer v. Kendall County, Ill., 220 F.3d 805, 811 (7th Cir. 2000); Davis v. Zirkelbach, 149 F.3d 614, 619 (7th Cir. 1998)). Agency principles of respondent superior and vicarious liability do not apply to 1983 claims. Kinslow v. Pullara, 538 F.3d 687, 692 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing Monell v. New York City Dept Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Hosty v. Carter, 412 F.3d 731, 733 (7th Cir. 2005)); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1948 (2009) ([P]laintiff must plead that each government official defendant, through the officials own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.). The present proposed amended complaint does not suggest that Sheriff Varga was personally involved in any of the alleged constitutional violations. The Court repeats to plaintiff for a second time that he must divide his claims into separate lawsuits and instructs him to name the person who was personally involved with the alleged constitutional violation as the defendant. Plaintiff would be wise to bring a separate lawsuit for each of these claims unless he can clearly show that he is bringing a suit against one person who was personally involved with the constitutional violation. Plaintiff is warned that his case will be dismissed if he fails to submit a proper proposed amended complaint within 30 days of the entry of this order. Plaintiff would also be wise to conduct preliminary research into the merits of his claim and the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. He should be aware that a prisoner may not bring a claim regarding the conditions of his confinement without first exhausting the claim through the grievance process (if that process is available to him). See 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a); see also Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006); Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 808 (7th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff must write both the case number and the Judges name on the proposed amended complaint, sign it, and return it to the Prisoner Correspondent. As with every document filed with the Court, plaintiff must provide an extra copy for the Judge; he must also submit a service copy for each defendant named in the proposed amended complaint. Plaintiff is cautioned that a proposed amended pleading supersedes any prior complaints and must stand complete on its own. Therefore, all allegations plaintiff wishes the Court to consider must be set forth in the proposed amended complaint, without reference to the original complaint. Any exhibits plaintiff wants the Court to consider in its threshold review of the proposed amended complaint must be attached, and each copy of the proposed amended complaint must include complete copies of any and all exhibits. The clerk
11C50202 Byron Edward Adams (101) vs. John Varga Page 2 of 3

On June 26, 2011, Carlson failed to complete plaintiffs trust fund account certification for his IFP petition.

Case: 3:11-cv-50202 Document #: 11 Filed: 09/30/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:73 STATEMENT will provide plaintiff with an amended civil rights complaint form and instructions along with a copy of this order. Plaintiffs renewed motion for appointment of counsel and motion to reconsider the prior denial of appointment of counsel (Dkt. Nos. 7, 9), are denied. The Court recognizes that plaintiff has unsuccessfully attempted to obtain his own counsel. However, counsel is not required at this time when the complexity of the case is viewed against plaintiffs abilities. Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 851-51 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc)). Plaintiff is required to submit a satisfactory proposed amended complaint before the case may proceed. Pro se prisoners routinely complete this task and the Court concludes, having observed plaintiffs abilities through this course of the litigation, that he is certainly able to meet this requirement if he follows the Courts instructions. In summary, the proposed amended complaint (Dkt. No. 8), is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is granted thirty days to submit a proposed amended complaint (plus a Judges copy and service copies) limited to a single, core claim in accordance with this order. The clerk is directed to provide the plaintiff with an amended civil rights complaint form and instructions for filing along with a copy of this order. Failure to submit a proposed amended complaint within thirty days will result in summary dismissal of this case. Plaintiffs renewed motion for appointment of counsel and motion to reconsider the prior denial of appointment of counsel (Dkt. Nos. 7, 9), are denied.

11C50202 Byron Edward Adams (101) vs. John Varga

Page 3 of 3