Opinion
22-cv-1923-NJR
10-17-2022
ROBERT BEN RHOADES, Plaintiff, v. ROB JEFFRIES, ANTHONY WILLS, and JENNIFER COWAN, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL Chief U.S. District Judge
Plaintiff Robert Ben Rhoades, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) who is currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the Complaint, Rhoades alleges he received cold food on several occasions from the cafeteria.
This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Under Section 1915A, the Court is required to screen prisoner complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
The Complaint
In his Complaint, Rhoades makes the following allegations: From October 2021 to August 2022, the food provided for the inmates at Menard was served on uninsulated hard plastic trays and was cold most of the time. The food is cooked several hours prior to being placed on the trays. The trays are stacked up in the kitchen until after shift change in the cellhouses and then distributed.
Discussion
Simply put, Rhoades fails to state a claim. There are no allegations suggesting IDOC Director Jeffries and Warden Wills were personally responsible for the service of cold food to Rhoades, and they cannot be held liable based solely on their positions as administrators as the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to Section 1983 actions. See Chavez v. Illinois State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 651 (2001). Further, Grievance Officer Cowan merely processed Rhoades's grievance and cannot be held liable for the conduct forming the basis of the grievance. See Owens v. Evans, 878 F.3d 559, 563 (7th Cir. 2017).
Even if Rhoades had named a proper defendant, in order to adequately allege an Eighth Amendment unconstitutional conditions of confinement claim, Rhoades must first establish conditions that deny him “the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities” and create an excessive risk to his health or safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). There are no allegations suggesting that cold food created a risk to Rhoades's health or safety or that he suffered any negative consequences from eating cold food. He simply fails to state any claim of a constitutional deprivation. Although the Court is unable to identify a constitutional violation in his current pleadings, the Court will allow Rhoades an opportunity to amend his Complaint.
Disposition
For the reasons stated above, the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Rhoades will have an opportunity to file a First Amended Complaint if he wishes to pursue his claims. If he chooses to do so, Rhoades must comply with the instructions and deadlines set forth below.
Rhoades is GRANTED leave to file a “First Amended Complaint” on or before November 14, 2022. Should he fail to file his 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. App. P. 41(b). See generally 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). Such a dismissal could count as one of Rhoades's three allotted “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Along with his current Complaint, Rhoades has filed several other cases pending before the Court. Should those cases be dismissed as frivolous, they could be counted towards his allotted “strikes” and prevent him from filing future cases without prepayment of fees. As such, the Court will allow Rhoades to either file a First Amended Complaint or seek to dismiss his original Complaint voluntarily by the stated deadline.
28 U.S.C. §1915(g) provides that “[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.”
An amended complaint 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 Court will not accept piecemeal amendments to the original Complaint. Thus, if Rhoades chooses to file an amended pleading, the First Amended Complaint must stand on its own, without reference to any previous pleading, and Rhoades must re-file any exhibits he wishes the Court to consider along with the First Amended Complaint. The First Amended Complaint is subject to review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. To aid Rhoades in drafting his First Amended Complaint, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Rhoades a Section 1983 Complaint form.
Rhoades 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 he elects to file a First Amended Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); Lucien v. Jockisch, 133 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1998). If Rhoades chooses to dismiss his case voluntarily, the Court will not collect the remaining filing fee.
Finally, Rhoades 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 seven 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.