Aft e r e x a m i ni ng the br i e f s a nd the recor d, we h a ve  concl ud ed that oral argum ent is unneces sar y. Thu s, the app eal is s ub m it ted o n t he brie f s and the rec ord. S ee F ED . R. A PP . P. 3 4 (a )(2)(C ). 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 3618 J AM ES O WEN S, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. C HA RLES H INS LEY, etal. , D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 06 -CV-380 -DRH

—David R. H ern don, Chief Ju dge .
S UB MI TT ED N OVE MBE R 30, 2010

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 18, 2011 

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd P O SN ERa nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ircu it Judge. Jam es O w en s, an I ll inois prisoner, w as house d at the M enar d C or re cti onalCenterwh en2 N o. 09

- 3618 he fi l ed thi s a cti on under 4 2 U.S
. C. § 1 983. T he pl ace of confi nem ent i s al l that co nnects hi s ho dgepodge o fal l ega ti ons, wh i ch the district c ourto rg ani zed i nto seve n cl ai m s ( so m e wi ths ubpa r ts ) a g ainst th e 15 na m ed defen dan ts
. The co ur t di smi ss ed fi ve o f th o se cl ai m s at scr ee ni ng, se e 2 8 U.S
. C. § 1 915A, and gr an te d sum m ar y j ud gm en t f o r the de fen d an ts o n the o th ert wo. F i ndi ngno me r i ti n a n y o fO we n s ’ s a r g u me n t s o n a p p e a l, w e a ffi r m. The num ber of cl ai m s and defendants r efl ecte d Ow ens’ s f ai l ure to obs er ve the r equi re m ents ofFe deral Rule ofCi vi l Pro cedure 20( a) ( 2) w ith r espectto j oi nd er o fpa r ti es . W e emphas i ze d i n G eorgev. Sm it h , 507 F. 3d 605, 60 7 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) , tha t unr el at ed cl ai m s ag ains t di ffer en t defe nd ants bel ong i n separ ate l aw sui ts, noto nl y “ to p r e v e n tt he so r to fmo r a s s ” p r o d u c e d b y mu l t i

- c l a i m, m ulti-defen d an t suits li ke th is one, b u t also to ens ure that pri sone rs pay a l l fees r equi re d und erthe Pri son L i t i g a t i o n R e f o r m A c t, s e e 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 9 1 5 ( b ) , ( g )
. C o mpl a i nt s l i k e thi s o ne fr o m Owe ns s ho ul d b e r ej e c t e d, George, 50 7 F
. 3d at 607, ei therby se ver i ng the act i on i nto separat e la w sui ts orby di sm i ssi ng i m proper l y j oi ned defe nd ants, se e F ED . R. C IV . P . 21; D irec tTV , Inc. v. Le to , 46 7 F. 3d 842, 84 4- 45 ( 3d Cir

. 20 06) ; E lm o re v. He nde rs on, 22 7 F. 3d 1009 , 10 12 ( 7th Ci r. 200 0); M i ch ae l s Bldg. Co. v. Ame r i t r u s tCo
. , N. A. , 848 F.2d 67 4, 68 2 (6 th C ir. 19 88 ). Th is i s no t, however, a j u ris dict i onalfl aw , and so we proceed t o anal yze Ow ens’ s a l l ega ti ons. T he e v id en ce before th e d istri ct cou rt at sum m ary j ud gm ent c an be sum m ar i zed as f ol l ows. Ow ens b ega n a hungerst ri ke i n A pri l 20 04 to prot estwh at he vi ew edN o. 09

- 3618 3

as i nd i ffer ence to hi s g rie vances abo ut co nd i ti ons at M en ar d. He pu bl i ciz ed hi s st r i k e byc o m m uni ca ting w i th st ate o fficia l s a nd pri son em plo yee s. A fter21 days Ow ens went to the in fi rm ar y, wh er e he re m ai ned fo r fou r d ays . H e then vo l untari l y e nd ed hi s hungerst ri ke a ft e r b e i nga s s ur e d tha th i s g r i e v a nc e s wo ul d be a ddr es sed

. Ow ens, wh o i s 5 ’ 4” and ave ra ges 19 5 pounds, l o stabou t 20 po unds dur i ngthe hun g ers tr i k e but re gai ned al l o fthatweight. Th ere i s no ev i dence that he suffer ed m edi calco m pli cati ons. Be l i e v i ngtha th i s g r i e v a nc e s we r e s t i l l b e i ngi gno r e d, Ow ens b ega n a s eco nd hungerst ri ke in Ju ne 20 04. A fter 25 da y s pr i so n o ffi ci al s m o ve d him from hi s ce l l t o the i n fi r ma r y, wh e r e f o r a l mo s t th r e e mo r e we ek s he re fused to ea t. A t that poi nt adm i ni str ato rs ob tai ned an or der fro m a sta te cour t a l l owing them to f or ce- feed Ow ens, w h o ended the hungerst ri ke on Au gust 5 a fter the fi rs t use o fa feedi ng tube

. Thi s t i m e he had l osto ver 30 p ou n d s, but ag ai n ther e i s no ev i dence ofm edi cal com pli cati ons. On A ugust 8 he s ubm i tte d a gr i evance to h is counsel orco m pla i ni ng tha t duri ng the two hunger st rik es h e w as leftin h is c e l l w ith ou t m ed ica l m on itor i ngf o r a t o ta l o f4 9 day s. Owens mai nt aine d tha t he shoul d have be en house d in the i nfi rm ar y a l lthatti m e. Hi s c o un s e l o r di d n o tr e s po nd

. I n Jan ua ry 2005, Ow en s w as p laced in d iscipli na ry se g r eg at i o n a nd a ss i g ned to a c el l wi thi nm at e Gor do n. F o r a month the t wo g o t al o ng, b utthe n w i th o utwar ni ng o r e xpl an at i o n Go r do n h i t Owens i n the mouth, s pl i tt i ng hi s l i p. Go r do n a l so threa ten ed to hi t hi m a g ain. Owens4 N o. 09

- 3618

re port ed the pu nch to the guar ds on duty

— defe nd ants A nd erson and N iepert

—buta t su m m ar y j udg m en t he neve r sai d w hetherhe a l so disc l ose d G or don’s thr eat
. The two guar ds re m ai ned si l ent when Ow ens a ske d to be r e l e a s e d f r o m h i s c e l l

. L a t e r th a t a ft e r n o o n, when a di ffer en t g ua r d w as i n vi ew, Gor do n swungag ain. Owens e va de d the p un c he s , a nd the g ua r d qui c k l y i nt e r v e ne d. Ow ens was ta ken t o the infi rm ar y an d gi ven a sa l tw at er rin se to tre at th e s m all l a c e r a tio n s le ft in h is m ou th by G or d on ’s e ar lier p u n c h . (O w en s s ay s in h is co m pl ainta nd a ppel l at e br i eftha t he was left w i tha scar o n hi s l i p, b uth e s ub mi t t e d n o a dmi s s ib l e e v i de nce to su b st an tia te th is a lleg at ion .) O w en s nex t w as ho us ed w ith inm ate A ut in. For a m onth they c oexi ste d pea c efull y, but A uti n ra n out of dr ug s to c o nt r o l hi s m en ta l i l l ne ss and c au ti o ne d Owens to move e l se wher e be ca us e he might lose c o nt r o l

. Owens tol d no one abo ut thi s warni ng. On A uti n’s f ourth day w i thout m edi cation , he s w ung at Ow ens b ut l anded no p un ch es. O w en s to ld a gu ard

— defe nd ant S m i th

— ab o u t t h e in c id en t, an d A u tin ch im ed in t h at h e w ou ld g o a fte r Owens a g ain. Owens a sk ed to be m o ve d, b ut Sm ith s a id h e cou ld n ot d o anyt hin g tha t d ay. H ou rs l at erOwens was c o nv er singwi thanothe r g ua r d abo ut m ovin g when A uti n rushed fro m behi nd and shov ed him into th e bars. Th e gua rd took Ow en s to the infirm ary w i th a bum p on h i s f or ehead and a sm al l abr asi on o n o n e e lb o w. T he se even ts u n d e r lie f ou r ofthe claim s in Ow en s’s c om p lain t. In o n e of th es e c laim s h e c on te n d s t h at u n sp ec i-N o. 09

- 3618 5 fied offic ials vio lat ed th e C on st it u t ion by ign or in g h is m any a nd var i ed gr i evance s; i n another he i nsists that hi s “ ri ght t o peaceful dem onst ra ti on” w as i nfr i nged wh e n h i s s e c o n d h u n g e r s t r i k e wa s f o r c ib l y e n ded

. At scr eeni ng the di strict court dism i sse d both o fthes e cl ai m s as f ri vol ous, and we concur w i th thi s a ss ess m en t. Pri son gr i evance pro cedures ar e no t m andated by the F i rs t A m en d m ent a nd do notby thei r ver y e xi ste nce cr ea te i nt er es ts pr o te ct ed by th e Due Pr o ce ss Cl au se, and so the a l l eged m ishand l i ng o fOw ens’ s g ri evance s by p er so n s w h o ot h er w ise d id n otca u se or p a r t i c ip at e in the underl yi ng co n d u c t s tat es no cl ai m . S ee George, 50 7 F .3d at60 9; Gri e ve son v. A nd e rs on , 53 8 F
. 3d 763, 77 2 & n .3 (7t h C i r . 2 00 8); Ant one l l iv. Sh e ahan , 81 F. 3d 1422 , 14 30 ( 7th Ci r . 19 96 )
. And a s we s ai d i n Fre e m an v. Be rge, 44 1 F
. 3d 543, 54 6- 47 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) , an inm ate co nd ucti ng a hunger str i ke does not have a co nstituti onal l y pr ote cted ri ght t o re fuse l i fe- saving m edi caltr eat m ent. Tw o othe r cl ai m s proce eded to sum m ary j ud gm ent. Owens c o nt en ded th at he sh o ul d ha ve b ee n mov ed to the i nfi r mar y f o r the d urat i o n o fb o th hu ng e r s t r i k e s a nd , because he was not, thatse ver alnam ed defe nd ants had be ende l ibe r at el y i ndi ffer en t to the s ta te o fhi s he al th

. H e al so a ss er te d tha t g ua r ds Ander so n, Nie per t, a nd Sm i th vi ol ate d the Ei ghth Am endm ent b y f ai l i ng to pr o te cthi m fr o m the s ec o nd a ss au l ts b y Go r do n a nd A uti n. The di str i ct c ourtco ncl ud ed that O w ens had f ai l ed to e xhausthi s admi ni st r at i ve r emedi es f o r the h ea lth c ar e c laim . See 42 U .S.C . § 19 97 e(a ); D o le v. C ha nd ler, 438 F. 3d 804, 80 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)
. The co urt rej ecte d Owens ’ s f ai l ur e- to
- pr o te ct cl ai m s f o r l ac k o f an e vi den

-6 N o. 09

- 3618 tia ry sh ow in g t h at co u ld h av e s u p p o r t ed a ve rd ict in h is favor. The l att er ruling i s co rr ect. On the e vi dence pres ented ats um m ar y j udg m en t, a j ur y c o ul d not r ea so nabl y fi nd th at th e g u ar d s, b y d ec lin in g to m ov e O w en s im m ed iate l y t o anothe r cel l, del iber ate l y i gnor ed a s ubstanti al ri sk that he would sufferse ri ous har m a t th e h ands of hi s ce l l m ate s. S ee Far m e rv. Br e nna n , 511 F. 3d 825 , 8 34 (19 94 ); Kle b anows kiv. Sh e ahan , 5 40 F.3d 63 3, 637 (7th Cir. 20 08 ). G or d on ’s on e s u rp ris e p u n c h an d A u tin ’s w ild sw i ngs di d not g ive the defendants r eas on t o bel i eve that Ow ens f aced an i m m i nent and subst anti althr eatto hi s s afety
. The l i ti gants di d not s u b m it tes ti m ony f ro m A n derso n, N i epert, o r Sm i th, and so the re cor d does no t re ve al w h et h er th ey re p or te d th e init ial sc ra p s t o t h eir supe r i o r s o r t o o k o the r r e a s o nab l e s t e ps t o pr e v e nta re peti ti on. I t doe s no t m att er . Even i fthe th re e defen dan ts s hr ug g ed o ffthe min o r fi st i cuff s, the evi dence at s u m m ar y j ud gm ent s how s o nl y that they m i sj ud ged the r i fts between Ow en s a nd the cel l m ate s he ha d b unk ed wi tha m i cabl y f o r a month. Owens offered no evid en ce th at he to ld A nd erson or N iepert abou t G or don’s thr eatto st ri ke aga i n, and Sm i th had no r eas on t o suspect that A u ti n, wh o had not m anage d to l an d a punc h, was a se r i o us th r ea t to Owe ns . N oth i ng ind icates th at t h e risk either tim e to Ow en s w as m ore than m i ni m al, se e D al ev. Pos t on , 54 8 F
. 3d 563, 56 9 ( 7th Cir
. 20 08) , and w hen another scuffl e s i gnal ed that te ns i o n r emai ne d, pr i so n s ta ffqui ckly s te pped i n a nd se p a r a t e d th e i n ma t e s . S u mma r y j u d g me n t f o r t he guar ds w as appropri ate
.N o. 09

- 3618 7 T h e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s ru l i n g on th e m ed ica l-ca re cla im r equi r es a c l o se r look

. At s um m ar y j udg m en t Owens tendere d a co p y ofhi s g ri evance , dated A ugust 8 , 20 04, al l eg i ngtha t he was l eft i n h i s ce l l wi th o utm ed i ca l a tt en ti on duri ng subs tanti alpor ti ons ofhi s hungerst rik es. Acco r di ngt o Ow en s, he g av e th i s g r i ev an ce t o hi s co unselor but nev err ecei ved a re ply, and so he for w ar ded co pi es t o the g r i ev an ce o ffi ce r i n F eb r ua ry 2 00 5 an d to the Ad m i ni str ative Revi ew Boar d i n J une 200 5. T h e d ist ric t c ou rta c k n ow led ge d th e s ign ifica n c e o f th is gr i evance but conclud ed that, since Ow ens had notdi scussed i t in an affi davi t o r deposi tion , h e la cked a dm i ssib le e vid en c e t h at h e g av e t h e g rie va n c e t o p ris on offic ials. I n thi s r espect, the cour t e rr ed. Ow ens v er i fi ed hi s r esponse i n opposi ti on t o the defendants’ m oti on f or su m m ar y ju d g m e n t, an d th at w as en ou gh to m ak e h is al l eg ati ons adm i ss ibl e. S ee 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 74 6. As the dist ri ct c ourtnot ed, Ow ens’s su bm i ssi on was not l i te rall y a n “ affi dav i t” b ec au se he di d no t swe art o the c o nt e nti n the p r e s e nc e o fs o m e o ne a utho r i z e d t o a dm i ni ste r oaths. S ee E lder-Keep v. A ksam it, 46 0 F
. 3d 979, 98 4 (8 t h C ir. 20 06 ); P

feil v. R o gers , 757 F.2d 850 , 859 (7th C ir. 19 85 ); B L A CK ’ S L AW D ICTIO NA RY 66 (9th ed

. 2009). N everthel ess , a decl ar ati on under § 1746 i s e quiva l ent t o an affid av it for p u rp os es of su m m ar y jud gm en t. Se e, e .g ., P retka v. Ko lt erCity Plaz a II , Inc. , 608 F. 3d 744, 74 9 n .5 (11 th C ir. 20 10 ); El Bey v . Roop , 530 F.3d 4 0 7, 4 1 4 ( 6th Cir. 2008); D a le v. Lappin , 376 F.3d 652 , 655 (7th C ir. 2004); For d v
. Wi l s on , 90 F. 3d 245, 246 (7th Cir. 1996). Yet ev en t aki ng Ow ens a t hi s word, we concl ud e that he f ai l ed to exhaust. W hen an i nfo rm al re sol uti on is not8 N o. 09

- 3618

ac h iev ed by ta lkin g t o a co u n se lor, an inm a t e in Illin ois ha s 6 0 da y s f r o m the da t e o f the un de r l y i ng i nc i dent to subm i t a writt en gr i evance to the f aci l i ty’ s desi gnate d gr i evance o ffi cer . 20 I LL . A D M IN . C ODE § 50 4.8 10 ; D ole, 4 38 F.3d at80 9; D ixon v. Page, 29 1 F
. 3d 48 5, 48 9 ( 7th C ir. 2002 )
. Ow ens e nd ed hi s s eco n d hungerst ri ke thre e days be f o r e he dr afte d the Augus t 8 g r i ev ance , a nd s o he had unti l ear l y October 2004 to gi ve i t to the g rie vance offic er . B y h is ow n ad m iss ion , Ow en s in ex p l i c ab ly w ai ted unti l Fe bruar y 2 005. By then i t was to o l ate
. I n the al ter nati ve th e defe nd ants ar gue that a l ack of ev i den ce pr ovided a n i nde pen den t ba si s f o r di smi ss i ng th is cl aim
. W e agree w ith th is poin t a s w ell

. Ow en s’s com ple te deposi ti on was te nd er ed at sum m ar y j ud gm en t, a nd his t es ti m o ny c o nfi r m s th athe l o stwei g ht an d b ec ame we akwhi l e on h i s hung ers tr i k es b ut su ffered no m ed ical com p lications

. Prison ad m inistrators have a rig h t a nd a du ty to ste p i n and f or ce a n i nm ate to ta ke nour i shm ent i fa hunger str i ke has pro gr ess ed to the point wh er e co nti nuati on r i sks se ri ous inj ury or d ea th

. Fre e m an , 4 41 F
. 3d at 546- 47. But i fweight l oss and tem pora rydi sco m f or t a re the onl y c onse quences o f r efusing to ea t, the n the i nm at e’ s ch o i ce t o g o o n a hung ers tr i k e r ai se s n o Ei g hth Am en dm en t co nc ern. Se e id . at 5 47 ; Rodr iguez v. Br i ley, 40 3 F
. 3d 952, 95 3 ( 7th C ir. 20 05 ). Fr o m a l l t h at w e c an se e, O w en s’s cla im is ba se l es s. Ei th er th i s g r o und, o n our deno vo r evi ew , o r hi s f a i l ur e t o e xh a us t l e a ds t o the s a me c o nc l us i o n: di smi s s a l wa s r e qu i r e d. Tha t leav es the o therthr ee cl ai m s di sm i sse d at sc r ee ni ng, i n whi chOwens pri nc ipa l l y a l l eg es tha t heN o. 09

- 3618 9 suffer ed re tal i ati on f orfi l i ng g ri evance s and was denie d m edi ca l a nd de nt alc ar e. At s cr ee ni ngthe di st r i ctcou rt si gnal ed that i t would have a l l owed thes e cl ai m s t o proce ed except that Ow ens had notl i nked hi s allegati ons ofunconsti tuti onalco nd uct t o i denti fi abl e defen dan ts ( o r, in a few i ns ta nc es , ha d na m ed o nl y de fen d an ts w h o c ou ld n o t p e rs on ally h av e b ee n inv olv ed in the a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o ns )
. S ee C o llins v . Kib o rt, 14 3 F
. 3d 331, 33 4 (7 th C ir. 19 98 ) (“A p lain tiffc a n n o t st at e a cla im a g a i n s ta d e fe n d a n tby i n c l u d i n gth e d e fe n d a n t ’ s n a me i n the c apt i o n. ”)
. These c l ai m s wer e di smi ss ed wi th o ut p rej u d ice . Ow en s d oe s n otarg u e t h at th e c ou rt ’s b as is f ordi sm issa l was er ro neous, but i nstea d contends that his p rop osed am en d ed c o m p lai nt, w hich doe s iden tify s pe c i fi c de fe nd a nt s , s ho ul d h a v e b e e n a l l o we d. Ow ens fi l ed hi s a m ended com pla i nt i n M ar ch 200 7, eig ht m onths afterhe fi l ed sui t a nd thr ee m onths after the di str i ct c ourth ad scr eened the o ri gi nal co m pla i nt. The 246- parag ra ph d ocum ent a dd s 2 1 page s a nd 29 defe nd ants to the o ri gi nal co m pla i n t, an d m any o fi ts alle ga tio n s d at e b ac k se ve ra l yea rs , som e a s fa r as 20 01 . A m agi str ate j ud ge str uck the new com pla i nt. S ee F ED . R. C IV . P. 7 2 ( a ) ; S
. D. I LL . L. R. 72. 1( a) ( 1)
. The co urt w as uncert ain w he th er the d ocu m e nt had arri ved i n th e clerk’s of f i c e b e f o r e a j o i nta ns we r fi l e d b y s e v e r a l de fe nd a nt s, see F ED . R. C IV . P. 15 ( a) , but si nce Ow ens had not c o mp l i e d w i t h l o c a l p r o c e d u r e f o r a me n d i n ga c o mpl a i nt, the c o ur ts t r uc kthe p r o po s e d p l e ading, s e e S
. D. I LL . L. R. 1 5. 1. The c o ur t’ s o r dero ffer ed co r r ec ti ve i nst r uct i o ns i n the e ve ntthat Owens want ed to t r y a g ain, b u t w h en h e d id th e follow in g m on th h e ap p ar en tly10 N o. 09

- 3618

re subm i tte d the s am e co m pla i nt. Thi s t i m e the m agi str ate j ud ge denie d l eave to am end b ec au se Ow ens had r ea l l eg ed th e t w o c l ai m s th atwer e di smi ss ed wi thpr ej udice atscr eeni ng. W e r evi ew a denia l o fl eave to am end onl y forabuse o f d i s c re tio n, Foste r v. D eLuca , 5 45 F
. 3d 58 2, 5 84 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08 ); S o lt y s v. C oste ll o , 520 F.3d 737, 743 (7th C ir. 2008), and w e fi nd none here

. Even i fOw ens m ad e progr ess in c uring the d efi cienc ies i n th e three clai m s tha t w ere dism i sse d w i thout prej ud i ce a t s cre en ing, he a l so tr i ed to evade the § 19 15A rul i ng bypre ssi ng f or w ar d w i th the c l ai m s th at were dism i sse d fo r f ai l ure to sta te a cl ai m . A nd thi s a cti on co uld nothave been i nadvert ent; O w e n s ex p an d ed th e t w o c laim s t o fou r tim es th eir or i gi nal l ength. Th e m agis tr ate j ud ge w as not obl i gat ed to r ewa r d i nt r an si g en ce ; the se c l ai m s a r e f r i vo l o us a nd ag ain would have f aced i m m edi ate di sm i ssa l

. W e hav e h e l d t ha t l e a v e t o a me n d ma y b e d e n i e d i fth e n e w c o mp lain t d oe s n otcu re d efic ien c ies in t h e o l d o n e an d is d oo m ed to th e s am e fa te
. E .g ., H uk i c v. A uro ra L o a n S ervs. , 58 8 F.3d 42 0, 43 2 (7th C i r . 2 00 9); D uda v. Bd. of Educ
. of Fr a n k lin P a rk P ub. Sc h. D ist
. , 13 3 F
. 3d 1054, 10 57 n. 4 ( 7th C ir. 1998). W e hav e c o ns idered the rem aining issu es in Ow en s’s bri efan d concl ud e that no ne has m er i t. Fo r these re aso ns the j ud gm ent i s A FFI RMED .

3- 18- 11