KAZ LINK, #K59744, Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 20-cv-00068-MAB
H. HOOD, F. LAWRENCE, JOHN DOE, placement officer, and COUNSELOR PRICE,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BEATTY, Magistrate Judge: Plaintiff Kaz Link an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) who is currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”), brings this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights. He claims he has been subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement and seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. The Complaint is now before the Court for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.1 Under Section 1915A, any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or requests money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). At this juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se Complaint are to be liberally construed. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d
1 The Court has jurisdiction to screen Link’s Complaint in light of his consent to the full jurisdiction of a magistrate judge and the Illinois Department of Corrections’ limited consent to the exercise of magistrate judge jurisdiction, as set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding between the Illinois Department of Corrections and this Court. THE COMPLAINT Link alleges the following: He is currently being housed in unconstitutional conditions in the segregation unit of North 2 cell house at Menard. (Doc. 1). He was also subjected to inhumane conditions when he was previously housed in North 1 cell house. The cells in both North 1 and 2 cell houses are shockingly small. Despite a court ruling
that mandated one inmate per cell in North 1 cell house, Menard officials continue to house two inmates per cell in both North 1 and 2 cell houses, which are identical in size. Around June 3, 2019, Link requested to be moved to a one-man cell. He was informed that the placement office would conduct all “one-man moves” by July 1, 2019. Link continues to be unlawfully housed, however, in a small cell with another inmate. Because of the conditions, he suffers from depression, high levels of stress,
claustrophobia, headaches, lack of sleep, and loss of appetite. He is unable to properly stretch and exercise and has suffered painful injuries, including a blood clot in this right leg and a should injury. DISCUSSION The Court finds that the Complaint, as currently drafted, fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. Link identifies Counselor Hood, Warden Lawrence, Placement Officer John Doe, and Counselor Price as defendants in the case caption, but he does not describe how the defendants violated his constitutional rights. In fact, none of the defendants are referenced in the statement of claim at all. He mentions speaking with a counselor but does not identify the counselor by name. Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic Corp., v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Merely invoking the name of a potential defendant by listing him or her in the case caption is not sufficient to state a claim against that individual. See Collins v. Kibort, 143 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1998). Because Link has failed to associate his claims with any of the named defendants, the
Complaint will be dismissed. In light of these deficiencies, the Complaint does not survive preliminary review and shall be dismissed. If he wishes to pursue his claims, Link must file an amended complaint describing how the defendants, named as a party in the case caption, violated his rights, keeping in mind that in Section 1983 actions, there is no supervisory liability.
To be held individually liable a defendant must be “‘personally responsible for the deprivation of a constitutional right.’” Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001) (quoting Chavez v. Ill. State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 651 (7th Cir. 2001)). Finally, if Link does not know the name of an individual, he can refer to him or her by Doe designation but must identify the act(s) or omission(s) of each Doe defendant in the statement of claim (for example John Doe #1 did X and John Doe #2 did Y).
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Link has filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 3), which is DENIED.2 He states that, in an attempt to recruit counsel on his own, he has mailed letters to attorneys but has not received any responses. This is not sufficient information for the Court to determine if Link has made a reasonable effort to obtain counsel on his own, and
2 In evaluating Link’s Motion for Recruitment of Counsel, the Court applies the factors discussed in Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007) and related authority. counsel. See Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749, 760 (7th Cir. 2010). Should he choose to move for recruitment of counsel at a later date, the Court directs Link to include in the motion the names and address of at least three attorneys he has contacted, and if available, attach the letters from the attorneys who declined representation. DISPOSITION
IT IS ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief. The Motion for Recruitment of Counsel is DENIED. (Doc. 3). Link is GRANTED leave to file a “First Amended Complaint” on or before August 3, 2020. Should Link fail to file a First Amended Complaint within the allotted time or consistent with the instructions set forth in this Order, the entire case shall be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order and/or for failure to prosecute his
claims. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Johnson v. Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The dismissal shall also count as one of Link’s three allotted “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). It is strongly recommended that Link use the civil rights complaint form designed for use in this District. He should label the form, “First Amended Complaint,” and he
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
KAZ LINK, #K59744, Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 20-cv-00068-MAB
H. HOOD, F. LAWRENCE, JOHN DOE, placement officer, and COUNSELOR PRICE,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BEATTY, Magistrate Judge: Plaintiff Kaz Link an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) who is currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”), brings this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights. He claims he has been subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement and seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. The Complaint is now before the Court for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.1 Under Section 1915A, any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or requests money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). At this juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se Complaint are to be liberally construed. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d
1 The Court has jurisdiction to screen Link’s Complaint in light of his consent to the full jurisdiction of a magistrate judge and the Illinois Department of Corrections’ limited consent to the exercise of magistrate judge jurisdiction, as set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding between the Illinois Department of Corrections and this Court. THE COMPLAINT Link alleges the following: He is currently being housed in unconstitutional conditions in the segregation unit of North 2 cell house at Menard. (Doc. 1). He was also subjected to inhumane conditions when he was previously housed in North 1 cell house. The cells in both North 1 and 2 cell houses are shockingly small. Despite a court ruling
that mandated one inmate per cell in North 1 cell house, Menard officials continue to house two inmates per cell in both North 1 and 2 cell houses, which are identical in size. Around June 3, 2019, Link requested to be moved to a one-man cell. He was informed that the placement office would conduct all “one-man moves” by July 1, 2019. Link continues to be unlawfully housed, however, in a small cell with another inmate. Because of the conditions, he suffers from depression, high levels of stress,
claustrophobia, headaches, lack of sleep, and loss of appetite. He is unable to properly stretch and exercise and has suffered painful injuries, including a blood clot in this right leg and a should injury. DISCUSSION The Court finds that the Complaint, as currently drafted, fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. Link identifies Counselor Hood, Warden Lawrence, Placement Officer John Doe, and Counselor Price as defendants in the case caption, but he does not describe how the defendants violated his constitutional rights. In fact, none of the defendants are referenced in the statement of claim at all. He mentions speaking with a counselor but does not identify the counselor by name. Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic Corp., v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Merely invoking the name of a potential defendant by listing him or her in the case caption is not sufficient to state a claim against that individual. See Collins v. Kibort, 143 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1998). Because Link has failed to associate his claims with any of the named defendants, the
Complaint will be dismissed. In light of these deficiencies, the Complaint does not survive preliminary review and shall be dismissed. If he wishes to pursue his claims, Link must file an amended complaint describing how the defendants, named as a party in the case caption, violated his rights, keeping in mind that in Section 1983 actions, there is no supervisory liability.
To be held individually liable a defendant must be “‘personally responsible for the deprivation of a constitutional right.’” Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001) (quoting Chavez v. Ill. State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 651 (7th Cir. 2001)). Finally, if Link does not know the name of an individual, he can refer to him or her by Doe designation but must identify the act(s) or omission(s) of each Doe defendant in the statement of claim (for example John Doe #1 did X and John Doe #2 did Y).
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Link has filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 3), which is DENIED.2 He states that, in an attempt to recruit counsel on his own, he has mailed letters to attorneys but has not received any responses. This is not sufficient information for the Court to determine if Link has made a reasonable effort to obtain counsel on his own, and
2 In evaluating Link’s Motion for Recruitment of Counsel, the Court applies the factors discussed in Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007) and related authority. counsel. See Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749, 760 (7th Cir. 2010). Should he choose to move for recruitment of counsel at a later date, the Court directs Link to include in the motion the names and address of at least three attorneys he has contacted, and if available, attach the letters from the attorneys who declined representation. DISPOSITION
IT IS ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief. The Motion for Recruitment of Counsel is DENIED. (Doc. 3). Link is GRANTED leave to file a “First Amended Complaint” on or before August 3, 2020. Should Link fail to file a First Amended Complaint within the allotted time or consistent with the instructions set forth in this Order, the entire case shall be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order and/or for failure to prosecute his
claims. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Johnson v. Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The dismissal shall also count as one of Link’s three allotted “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). It is strongly recommended that Link use the civil rights complaint form designed for use in this District. He should label the form, “First Amended Complaint,” and he
should use the case number for this action (No. 20-cv-00068-MAB). To enable Link to comply with this Order, the CLERK is DIRECTED to mail him a blank civil rights complaint form. An amended complaint generally supersedes and replaces the original complaint, rendering the original complaint void. See Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., 354
F.3d 632, 638 n. 1 (7th Cir. 2004). The First Amended Complaint must stand on its own Court to consider. The First Amended Complaint is also subject to review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Link is further ADVISED that his obligation to pay the filing fee for this action was incurred at the time the action was filed, thus the filing fee remains due and payable, regardless of whether Link files a First Amended Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1);
Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998). Finally, Link 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 7 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: July 6, 2020
/s/ Mark A. Beatty MARK A. BEATTY, United States Magistrate Judge