United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division
OPINION AND ORDER
DEGUILIO JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Lee Jent, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint with
unrelated claims. “Unrelated claims against different
defendants belong in different suits . . ..” George
v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). See
also Owens v. Evans, 878 F.3d 559, 566 (7th Cir. 2017).
alleges Officer Anthony J. Watson put him in a holding cell
on August 17, 2018, without a toilet and then ignored his
pleas until he urinated on the floor. Unrelated to that
claim, he alleges Case Manager Sherry Hatchel refused to let
him make a phone call on August 14, 2018, and then wrote him
up for disorderly conduct after he stood outside her office
for an extended length of time to give her a grievance.
Unrelated to that claim, he alleges Wexford refuses to
properly treat his mental health problems. Unrelated to that
claim, he alleges Grievance Specialist Jeremy R. Wallen
suing Commissioner Robert E. Carter and Warden Ron Neil, but
he does not allege they violated his constitutional rights.
Rather he merely alleges they “are partially
responsible for their employee's actions. However, there
is no general respondeat superior liability under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 596
(7th Cir. 2009). “Only persons who cause or participate
in the violations are responsible.” George v.
Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007).
“[P]ublic employees are responsible for their own
misdeeds but not for anyone else's.” Burks v.
Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 596 (7th Cir. 2009). Therefore
Commissioner Robert E. Carter and Warden Ron Neil must be
Jent states he believes Lt. Pauline Williams and Sgt. Radats
collaborated against him with Officer Watson and Case Manager
Hatchel. However he has not provided any facts from which it
can be plausibly inferred that either violated his
constitutional rights. A complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter to “state a claim that is plausible on
its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility
when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at
556). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level, on the
assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true
(even if doubtful in fact).” Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 555 (quotation marks, citations and footnote omitted).
“[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court
to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the
complaint has alleged-but it has not shown-that the pleader
is entitled to relief.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 679 (quotation marks and brackets omitted).
Jent must file an amended complaint containing only related
claims. See Katz v. Gerardi, 552 F.3d 558, 563 (7th
Cir. 2009) and Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources,
Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2012). To do so, he
needs to put this cause number on a blank complaint form and
include only the facts about the related claims in that
complaint. If he wants to also sue the other defendants based
on other claims, he needs to get a different blank complaint
form. He should not put a cause number on the second (or
third, etc.) complaint form because it (or they) will be used
to open a new case (or cases). Jent must also file an in
forma pauperis motion with any additional complaints he
these reasons, the court:
(1) DISMISSES Commissioner Robert E. Carter and Warden Ron
(2) GRANTS Randy Lee Jent until May 30,
2019, to file one amended complaint in this
case containing only related claims; and
(3) CAUTIONS Randy Lee Jent if he does not respond by the
deadline or if he files an amended complaint with unrelated
claims, the court will select one group of related claims ...