Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Joan H. Lefkow Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 5127 DATE August 21, 2012

CASE

TITLE

Mohamed Alghazali (2011-1229126) vs. Grand and Central Police Station

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiff’s second amended compliant [7] is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is granted thirty days to

submit a third amended complaint (plus a judge’s copy and service copies). The Clerk is directed to provide

Plaintiff an amended civil rights complaint form with instructions. Failure to submit a third amended

complaint within thirty days of the date of this order will result in summary dismissal of this case in its

entirety. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [8] is denied as moot; Plaintiff has already

been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

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

STATEMENT

Plaintiff, Mohamed Alghazali, a pretrial detainee at Cook County Jail, brings this pro se civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 3, 2012, Plaintiff was allowed to proceed in forma pauperis; however, his

complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim against a suable defendant. Plaintiff’s original

complaint appeared to raise a claim of excessive force against an unknown police officer and lack of medical care at

Cook County Jail for the resulting broken hand. Plaintiff submitted an amended complaint; however, on July 30, 2012,

the amended complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim against the sole named Defendant and the Court

questioned whether Plaintiff had exhausted his administrative remedies as to his claims because he attached a grievance

to the amended complaint that he had just filed at CCJ. Plaintiff again raised his excessive force and lack of proper

medical care at CCJ in amended complaint. Plaintiff has now submitted a second amended complaint. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to conduct a prompt review of the second amended complaint.

 Plaintiff alleges that on June 26, 2012, he went to the dentist at CCJ to get a tooth pulled but the dentist pulled

the wrong tooth. Plaintiff alleges he is still in pain from the dentist pulling a good tooth and not pulling the bad tooth.

Plaintiff names Sheriff Thomas Dart as the sole Defendant. 

 Plaintiff cannot raise this new, unrelated claim in this action. First, Plaintiff cannot amend the complaint in the

present suit to raise a claim that did not accrue until after the original complaint in this was filed. Plaintiff’s original

complaint was filed on June 25, 2012 (based on postmark); Plaintiff’s present claim did not accrue until the alleged

conduct occurred, June 26, 2012, after this action was already filed. The claim and party in the proposed second

amended complaint have no relation to the original claim and party in the original complaint. If Plaintiff seeks to raise

these claims, he must file a new lawsuit. See United States v. Antonelli, 371 F.3d 360, 362 (7th Cir. 2004) (prisoner

could not evade the PLRA’s mandates by filing motion under criminal case number as opposed to filing a new civil

action); Moran v. Sondalle, 218 F.3d 647, 651 (7th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (“Prisoners who play games to avoid the

PLRA should not expect courts to cooperate.”); see also Marion v. Columbia Correctional Institution, 2007 WL

5346872, No. 07 C 243 (W.D. Wisc. June 18, 2007) (Crabb, J.) (holding prisoner must file a new lawsuit for unrelated

claim from previously dismissed suit); McCord v. Bertrand, 2005 WL 752250, No. 05 C 68, (W.D. Wisc. March 29,

2005) (Crabb, J.) (prisoner that sought to raise new claims against new defendants must file a new lawsuit). 

Second, Plaintiff could not have exhausted his administrative remedies as to this claim before filing suit because the

Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT

original complaint was filed before the alleged unconstitutional conduct had occurred. 

 In light of the above, the Court dismisses the second amended complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff is given

one more opportunity to file an amended complaint that relates to his original complaint. Plaintiff is given 30 days

from the date of this order to submit a third amended complaint on the forms required by Local Rule 81.1 of this Court. 

Plaintiff must write both the case number and the judge’s name on the complaint and return the originally filled out and

signed form and a copy for the judge and a copy for each defendant he names to the Prisoner Correspondent. Plaintiff

is advised to keep a copy for his files. The copies of the complaint may be either exact duplicates of the original (that

is, photocopied from the original) or conformed copies of the original (that is, typed or hand written word for word

from the original). If Plaintiff chooses to make conformed copies then he may request more copies of the amended

complaint form from the Prisoner Correspondent. 

Plaintiff is cautioned that an amended pleading supersedes the previous complaints and must stand complete on

its own. Therefore, all allegations must be set forth in the third amended complaint, without reference to the previous

complaints. Any exhibits Plaintiff wants the court to consider in its threshold review of the third amended complaint

must be attached, and each copy of the third amended complaint must include complete copies of any and all exhibits. 

Furthermore, as set forth in the Court’s previous order, Plaintiff must fully exhaust his administrative remedies as to

any claim regarding the alleged lack of medical care at Cook County Jail. 

 The Clerk will provide Plaintiff with an amended complaint form and instructions. If Plaintiff fails to comply

within thirty days, the case will be summarily dismissed.

Page 2 of 2