Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge Amy J. St. Eve Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 1266 DATE 2/23/2012

CASE

TITLE

Pedro Sanchez (R43423) vs. Warden Assistant Pierce, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiff Sanchez’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 3) is granted. The Court

authorizes and orders Plaintiff’s trust fund official to deduct $6.67 from his account, and to continue making

monthly deductions in accordance with this order. The clerk shall send a copy of this order to the trust fund

officer at the Stateville Correctional Center. Summonses shall not issue at this time. The complaint on file is

dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is granted twenty-eight days to submit an amended complaint (plus a

Judge’s copy and service copies) in accordance with the instructions set forth in this order. The clerk is

directed to provide Plaintiff with an amended civil rights complaint form and instructions for filing along

with a copy of this order. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 4), is denied without

prejudice. The Clerk is instructed to terminate Effrain Sotelo, Darrell Jones, Larry Whiters, Haywood Bobo,

Fransico Herrera, Charles F. Momany, Shawn Fulton, and Kelvin Johnson as Defendants. Plaintiff is warned

that failure to submit a proposed amended complaint in compliance with this order will result in summary

dismissal of this case. 

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

Pro se Plaintiff Pedro Sanchez, an inmate at the Stateville Correctional Center, has brought a civil

right suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed

in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 3), complaint for an initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, (Dkt. No. 1), and

motion for appointment of counsel. (Dkt. No. 4). 

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 3), is granted. Pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $6.67. The trust fund officer at

Plaintiff’s place of incarceration is authorized and ordered to collect the partial filing fee from Plaintiff’s trust

fund account and pay it directly to the Clerk of Court. After payment of the initial partial filing fee,

Plaintiff’s trust fund officer is directed to collect monthly payments from Plaintiff’s trust fund account in an

amount equal to 20% of the preceding month’s income credited to the account. Monthly payments shall be

forwarded to the Clerk of Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 until the full $350 filing fee

is paid. All payments shall be sent to the Clerk, United States District Court, 219 S. Dearborn St., Chicago,

Illinois 60604, attn: Cashier’s Desk, 20th Floor, and shall clearly identify Plaintiff’s name and this case

number. This payment obligation will follow Plaintiff wherever he may be transferred. 

Turning to the complaint, Plaintiff challenges the conditions of confinement that he experiences at

Stateville Correctional Center. He claims that his mandatory supervised release (MSR) was revoked and he

was returned to Stateville pending a review of the MSR revocation. He believes the conditions that he, and

12C1266 Pedro Sanchez (R43423) vs. Warden Assistant Pierce, et al. Page 1 of 3
STATEMENT

other inmates who have revoked MSR, suffer under are inhumane. He claims that they: (1) receive a shower

only once a week and are given improper hygiene products; (2) lack commissary access; (3) lack physical

exercise opportunities; (4) receive meals at weird hours including breakfast at 2 a.m.; (5) lack of proper

clothing; and, (6) suffer from excessive use of shackling. 

The present complaint is unacceptable for several reasons. First, Plaintiff seeks to bring a number of

unrelated claims regarding his incarceration. A prisoner is limited to one core group of related claims per

suit under the Prison Litigation Reform Act and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Owens v. Hinsley, 635

F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007)). Here, he has

brought six unrelated claims. Plaintiff is required to limit this case to one of these claims, and then bring the

other claims in their own respective suits.

Second, Plaintiff’s complaint improperly lists eight other inmates who are also allegedly suffering

from these conditions: Effrain Sotelo, M14601, Darrell Jones, R74334, Larry Whiters, K53002, Haywood

Bobo, B15720, Fransico Herrera, R71021, Charles F. Momany, N90921, Shawn Fulton, K50319, and Kelvin

Johnson, K98761. However, Plaintiff listed these individuals in the Defendant section of the complaint, and

so the Clerk added them as Defendants on the Court’s docket. It is clear that Plaintiff is attempting to bring

claims on their behalf as Plaintiffs, they are not Defendants.

Plaintiff’s attempt to bring suit on behalf of other inmates is improper. Although more than one

prisoner can join a lawsuit, each prisoner is required to pay a full filing fee. Boriboune v. Berge, 391 F.3d

852, 856 (7th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff’s IFP petition only covers his fee. In addition, as a non attorney, Plaintiff

is limited to representing himself pro se, he cannot represent other prisoners. Elustra v. Mineo, 595 F.3d 699,

704 (7th Cir. 2010). 

 Plaintiff and any other possible future Plaintiffs are reminded that they must meet the filing

requirements for submitting a proposed complaint. Each Plainitff must: (1) submit a proper fee or IFP

petition; (2) sign the complaint and by doing so, must comply with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure; (3) detail all prior litigation history, Hoskins v. Dart, 633 F.3d 541 (7th Cir. 2011) (per curiam);

and, (4) comply with the three strikes requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice. He must submit a proposed amended complaint

within twenty-eight days of the entry of this order that complies with the requirements set forth in this order. 

It would be in Plaintiff’s best interest to conduct preliminary research into his claims before refiling them in

new suits.

Plaintiff must write both the case number and the Judge’s 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 the proposed amended pleading supersedes the

original complaint 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 will provide Plaintiff with an amended civil rights complaint form and instructions along

with a copy of this order. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the case will be summarily dismissed in

12C1266 Pedro Sanchez (R43423) vs. Warden Assistant Pierce, et al. Page 2 of 3
STATEMENT

its entirety.

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 4), is denied without prejudice. At this time,

Plaintiff’s only requirement is to submit a proper proposed amended complaint in accordance with this order. 

This task is not overly complex when measured against Plaintiff’s abilities. Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d

847, 851 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc)). Counsel is not

required. 

12C1266 Pedro Sanchez (R43423) vs. Warden Assistant Pierce, et al. Page 3 of 3