Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilcd;;1:16-cv-01161_de7> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01161_de7 RegisterActionDate "2016-09-06" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01161_de7 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ONLY ORDER entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 9/6/2016. Plaintiff files a lengthy complaint naming 24 individual defendants asserting retaliation, use of excessive force, deliberate indifferences, and procedural due process violations. Plaintiff attempts to combine retaliation, excessive force and due process claims from Western with deliberate indifference claims from Pontiac. Furthermore, under Count I, II, IV and VII Plaintiff refers to the Defendants collectively so it is impossible to determine to which of the many defendants he is referring. Plaintiff also pleads conspiracy without identifying the individual conspirators. Here, Plaintiff attempts to yoke everything and everyone together in this single lawsuit. A plaintiff may join several defendants in one suit only if the claims arose out of a single transaction and contain a question of fact or law common to all the defendants. Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a); 86C36AC v. Harding, 12-cv-559, 2013 WL 6441027, at *2 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 9, 2013). Here the claims are disparate and do not arise from a single transaction. A litigant cannot throw all of his grievances, against dozens of different parties, into one stewpot. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits[.]). See Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011), We emphasized in George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir.2007), that unrelated claims against different defendants belong in separate lawsuits, not only to prevent the sort of morass produced by multi-claim, multi-defendants suits like this one, but also to ensure that prisoners pay all fees required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), (g). Furthermore, the complaint violates FRCP 8(a)(2) which provides that a pleading must contain a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to the relief sought. The collective referral to "defendants" fails to provide plain notice to the individual Defendants of the claims against them. The Seventh Circuit has consistently noted that the essential function of a complaint under the civil rules...is to put the defendant on notice of the plaintiff's claim. Ross Brothers Construction Co., Inc, v. International Steel Services, Inc. 2002 WL 413172 at 4 (7th Cir. 2002) quoting 86C36AC v. Ruby Foods, Inc., 269 F.3d 818, 820 (7th Cir. 2001). As the complaint is unclear as to which of the defendants is allegedly liable for the conduct alleged in Counts I, II, IV and VII, it is not susceptible to being severed. Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to replead within 30 days. Plaintiff is advised that his claims against the Western and Pontiac defendants belong in two separate lawsuits, each with its own attendant filing fee. Plaintiffs 5 Motion for Status is rendered MOOT by this order. (RK, ilcd) (Entered: 09/06/2016)" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01161_de7 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01161_de7 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01161_de4 @default.