Elliott next alleges that when the SVPCA program was moved to Joliet, he continued to
seek redress for the loss of his personal property and that this led to an ongoing pattern of
retaliation. Jd., 180. The first incident took place in January 2001. Elliott says that at the
direction of defendant Budz, the DHS TDF dircctor, defendants Stewart and Clairmont,
apparently DHS employees, locked him in his cell for refusing to accept a cellmate, a
requirement he says was imposed only because he is white (Elliott says that all black inmates
have single rooms), /d., {81. He alleges that Stewart, Clairmont, Budz, and defendants Toole (a
DHS employce) and Glotz (the TDF’s security director) failed to adhere to what he characterizes
as the procedures for imposing “seclusion” that arc established by state statute. Jd., 82. These
allegations are insufficient to state a claim against Toole and Glotz, whose participation is not
alleged, much less identified. See, ¢.g., Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561 (7th Cir. 1995)
(personal involvement required for liability under §1983). They conceivably may be sufficient to
state a §1983 claim, however, against Budz, Stewart, and Clairmont.

The next incident was on Apnil 5, 2001. Elliott says that on that date, he was summoned
before the TDF’s “behavioral committec” for allcgedly violating a rule requiring him to be tested
for tuberculosis, He explained that he had refused the test because he had a prior pulmonary
illness that would cause a false positive, and the test would put his health at risk in some
unspecified way. He was nonetheless found guilty of an infraction and was ordered to submit to
the test or face “permanent seclusion,” and he secms to accuse several of the defendants of
wrongfully disbelicving his assertions. Am. Cplt., 4988-90. It does not appear, however, that
“permanent seclusion” was in fact ordered — as will be scen momentarily, Elliott complains of an

incident about a month later when he says he was put into seclusion improperly. See id. 4|84.


however, for three reasons, First of all, with regard to some of the incidents, Elliott quite clearly
has ignored the Court’s previous directive to make a reasonable effort to distinguish among the
roles of the various defendants. This is not a serious concer, at least at this point, with regard to
incidents where Elliott has named the members of the TDF behavioral committee; the members
are unlikely to have played distinct roles in hearing and making decisions on charges imposed
against Elliott. It is, however, a serious concern with regard to the two incidents in which Elliott
basically accuses numerous defendants of writing the same allegedly falsc report: the J uly 2001
“softball” incident in which he charges scven defendants with writing a false report, and the May
2002 “typewriter” incident in which he similarly accuses five defendants. These contentions are
the epitome of a malicious allegation within the meaning of §1915(c)(2) — that is, one in which
the plaintiff acts for purposes of harassment and disparagement. See Tupia-Ortiz v. Winter, 185
F.3d 8, 11 (2d Cir. 1999). Because Elliott has not complied with this Court’s specific directive in
this regard, the claims against the alleged false-report-writers concerning those incidents —
Harvel, Southward, Godirey, Kerr, Haage, Thompson, Graham, Olsen, and Collins — are
dismissed pursuant to §1915(c)(2). This leaves claims against one report-writer (Cobb), threc
officers who assisted in placing Elliott in seclusion (Brown, Puchalski, and Martin), and twenty-
(hrec behavioral committee members and others claimed to have imposed discipline: Buds (3
incidents), Stewart (2 incidents), Clairmont (1 incident), Toole (3 incidents), Wood (1 incident),
Heinze (4 incidents), Glotz (1 incident), Marx (1 incident), Bronstein (1 incident), Proctor (4
incidents), Brucker (3 incidents), Sun (3 incidents), Finn (2 incidents), Guest (2 incidents),
Chakin (1 incident), Travis (3 incidents), Evenson (1 incident), Dobier (3 incidents), Speaker (1

incident), Washington (1 incident), Maun (1 incident), Hopson (1 incident), and Monahan (1


was not allowed to question the witnesses against him, and he says that it was clear to him that
the minds of the committee members — Bronstein, Stewart, Heinze, Proctor, and other unknown
persons — had becn made up before he appeared, Elliott was denied yard privileges for some
unspecified period and was “demoted in status” for what he says was a violation of a non-
existent rule. /d., 4991-92. The Court will discuss later in this Opinion with Elliott’s accusation
that seven defendants wrote a false report. Elliott’s allegation that he was not allowed to
question his accusers does not give risc to a due process claim; the Seventh Circuit recently noted
that a prisoner does not have the right to confront or cross-examine the witnesses against him at a
disciplinary hearing, see Piggie v. Cotton, F.3d __, 2003 WI. 22053414, at *3 (7th Cir. July
18, 2003), and there is no reason to belicve that a person in Elliott’s shocs has any greater
entitloment. His allegations of lack of notice and bias, however, may give rise to a potential
claim against the behavioral committee members.

Elliott says that on November 28, 2001, he was again summoned before the behavioral
committee and was advised that he had been accused of the offense of “insolence” for allegedly
calling Cobb, a DHS employce, a vulgar name. Elliott says that this was a false report made up
by Cobb. The committee, consisting of defendants Heinze, Brucker, Proctor, Sun, Finn, Gucst,
Chakin, Travis, Evenson, Dobier, Speaker, and Washington, nonetheless found Elliott guilty and
reduced him in status. Am. Cplt., 93. Again, however, Elliott does not identify any actual
consequences that this reduction had.

On January 30, 2002, Elliott says, he was once again summoned before the committee.
He says he was accused of committing an “offense in violation of state or federal law,” but he

does not say what it was. He claims he was not given written notice of the charge and was not


This suggests that Elliott submitted to the tuberculosis test. We assume for purposes of
discussion that the Fourteenth Amendment’s “deliberate indifference” standard applies to the
allegedly improper medical treatment. See, e.g., Jackson v. Illinois Medi-Car, Inc., 300 F.3d
760, 764 (7th Cir. 2002) (pretrial detainee). To state a claim, Elliott would have to allege that he
suffered some harm as a result of being given the test, see Babcock v. White, 102 F.3d 267, 270-
72 (7th Cir. 1996) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference case), and here he has alleged
none. He has provided no basis to pursue a claim against any of the defendants named with
regard to the April 5, 2001 incident: Vance, Khan, Shafi, Heinze, Toole, Brucker, Proctor, Glotz,
Wood, Budz, Addus Healthcare, and various unknown defendants.

The next incident took place on May 9, 2001. Elliott alleges that when he refused to strip
down on command, defendants Brown, Puchalski, and Martin were ordered to shake down his
cell. They supposedly notified Toole, Wood, Heinze, Glotz, Budz, and Marx of Elliott’s refusal
of the command, and as a result he was placed in seclusion. Am. Cplt., 484-86. Thesc
allegations do not state a claim against Brown, Puchalski, or Martin with regard to the
shakedown, as Elliott does not claim that he was harmed by the shakedown itself, Elliott
generally accuses Toole, Wood, Heinze, Glotz, Budz, and Marx of ordering the seclusion and
Brown, Puchalski and Martin of carrying it out.

The next incident happened in July 2001. Elliott says he was summoned before the TDF
behavioral committee for throwing a softball over a fence. He says this was actually an accident
but that seven of the defendants — Harvel, Southward, Godfrey, Kerr, Haage, Thompson and
Graham - somehow together wrote a single incident report suggesting that he had done it on

purpose. Am. Cplt., $91. Elliott contends that he was not notified of the pending charges and


with regard to the April 5, 2001 incident, id., {{[88-90; against Brown, Puchalski, or Martin with

regard to the May 9, 2001 incident, id., 4{]84-86, or against any of the defendants — Maun,

Proctor, Brucker, or Toole — with regard to the March 27, 2002 incident, id., 196. Those claims

arc dismissed pursuant to §1915(e)(2).

This leaves the following matters as to which a claim may be stated:

Date of incident __Nature of claim Defendants named
January 2001 Imposition of seclusion / Equal | Budz, Stewart, Clairmont
Protection; First Amendment
retaliation
May 9, 2001 Imposition of seclusion / First Toole, Wood, Heinze, Glotz, Budz,
Amendment retaliation Marx, Brown, Puchalski, Martin
July 2001 Making false report / First Harvel, Southward, Godfrey, Kerr,
Amendment retaliation Haage, Thompson, Graham
Imposition of discipline / Due Bronstein, Stewart, Heinze, Proctor,
Process; First Amendment unknown persons (behavioral committee
retaliation members)
November 28, Making false report Cobb
2001
Imposition of discipline / First Heinze, Brucker, Proctor, Sun, Finn,
Amendment retaliation Guest, Chakin, Travis, Evenson, Dobier,
Speaker, Washington (behavioral
committec members)
January 28, Imposition of discipline / Duc Proctor, Brucker, Toole, Sun, Dobier,
2002 Process; First Amendment Heinze, Travis (behavioral committee
retaliation rnembers)
May 6, 2002 Making false report Haage, Kerr, Graham, Olsen, Collins
Imposition of discipline / First Maun, Hopson, Budz, Monahan, Proctor,
Amendment retaliation Brucker, Dobier, Sun, Travis, Finn,
Guest, Toole, and unknown persons
(behavioral committee members)

By our count, this leaves thirty-seven defendants for claims arising from six incidents.

The Court is unwilling to allow the case to proceed in this somewhat reduced state,

8



‘Minute Crder Furtn (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Namcenize wax | Matthew F Kennelly | shin ute

CASE NUMBER 02 C 8949 DATE 9/24/2003 |
CASE Elliott vs. Baker
TITLE

{In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion being presented. ]

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

ql) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) o Brief in support of motion due.

(3) im) Answer brief to motion due____. Reply to answer briefdue____.

(4) a Ruling/Hearingon set for at

(5) a Status hearing{held/continued to] (set for/re-set for]on_—-_—ssetfor_— at.

(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continucd to} [sct for/re-set for}on_—>setfor_ at

ea) i} Trial[set for/re-set for]on_ at

(8) im (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continucd to at

(9) aq ‘This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4m) OLocalRule 41.1 CFRCP4l(aX1) COFRCP41(a)(2).

(ol [Other docket entry] Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted (3-1). Plaintiff's

claims regarding the incidents of September-November 2002, 4/5/01, 7/2001 and 5/2002 are dismissed in part as detailed
in the Memorandum Opinion and Order, Plaintiff is directed to file a separate supplement to his complaint on or before
10/22/03 with regard to the 7/2001, 11/2001, 1/30/02 and 5/6/02 incidents. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel
is denied (7-1) without prejudice to renewal following defendant's filing of responsive pleadings so that the Court can
make a proper determination whether appointed counsel is necessary. Motion to waive copies is denied. Summons
shall not issue at his time (8-1).

dl) 8 [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

Na notices required, advised in open court. Document

Number

1

No notices requited, umber of notices

Notices mailed by judge’s staff. ser 2 5 2003
Notified counsel by telephone.
7 | Docksting to mail notices

date duckered

Mail AO 450) form, dlockerng deputy iis

Copy to judge/magistrate judge, LUNOw -
courtroom che ul a)
OR dcputy’s
initials

Date/time received in

central Clerk's Office mailing depory initials



November 2000, April 5, 2001, and March 27, 2002 are dismissed, and his claims regarding the
incidents of January 2001, May 9, 2001, July 2001, and May 6, 2002 are dismissed in part as
detailed above, As directed above, plaintiff is directed to file a separate supplement to his
complaint on or before October 22, 2003 with regard to the July 2001, November 28, 2001,
January 30, 2002, and May 6, 2002 incidents. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel
[docket #7-1] is denicd without prejudice to renewal following defendants’ filing of responsive
pleadings so that the Court can make a proper determination whether appointed counsel is
necessary. Plaintiff's motion to waive copies [dockct #8-1] is denied. Summons shall not issue

at this time.

MATTHEW F,. KENNELLY
United States District Judge

Date: September 24, 2003



incident).

Second, with regard to the July 2001, November 28, 2001, January 30, 2002, and May 6,
2002 incidents, Elliott refers gencrally to a “reduction in status” without identifying the specific
adverse consequences that were imposed upon him and how long those consequences lasted for
each particular incident. Without further claboration in this regard, the Court will not permit the
claims regarding those incidents to proceed. Elliott is directed to file, within twenty-eight days
of this order, a scparale supplement to his amended complaint in which he describes the
consequences that he contends were imposed concerning cach of these incidents, The Court will
evaluate the supplement promptly upon receipt. The Court reserves the right to determine that
some or all of the claims should be brought in separate lawsuits.

Finally, the Court is unwilling to have the taxpayers foot the bill for duplicating Elliott’s
complaint. He will be required to provide sufficient copies (either photocopies or exact typed or
written duplicates) to serve each of defendants as (o whom the Court rules the case may proceed.
See generally Jones v. Franzen, 697 F.2d 801, 803 (7th Cir. 1983). At this pot, that involves a
maximum of twenty-seven defendants. If Elliott provides copies for fewer than all of the
defendants, he will be required to specify which defendants are to receive them (if Elliott gives
no direction, the Court will rank-order the defendants in terms of the chronological order of
incidents alleged in the amended complaint). The claims against any defendants for whom
copies are not provided will be dismissed.

Conclusion
The Court grants plaintiff’s motion for leave to procced in forma pauperis [docket # 3-1].

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2), plaintiff's claims regarding the incidents of September-

10


allowed to present witnesses or evidence. He was found guilty by committee members Proctor,
Brucker, Toole, Sun, Dobier, Heinze, and Travis, was again “demoted in status,” and lost postage
privileges for one year. /d., 495.

Elliott says that on March 27, 2002, he was brought before the committee for three rule
infractions, in which he was accused in some unspecified way of attempting to introduce some
sort of contraband inlo the TDF. Elliott says this was a false accusation. Jd.,9996. Elliott says
these claimed infractions “may have been dismissed,” id., and he identifies no adverse
consequence of any type that he expericnced as a result of the charges. He cannot pursue a claim
arising from these allegations against Maun, Proctor, Brucker, and Toolc, the defendants alleged
to have participated.

Finally, on May 6, 2002, Blliott says, he was once again summoned beforc the behavioral
committee for the alleged infraction of “lying to staff.” Defendants Haage, Kerr, Graham, Olsen
and Collins are said to have written (together?) a false incident report accusing Elliott of falsely
denying having his unit’s typewriter. Before the committec, Elliott gave his side of the story. He
alleges that the committee members (Maun, Hopson, Budz, Monahan, Proctor, Brucker, Dobier,
Sun, Travis, Firm, Guest, Toole, and unknown persons) found him guilty and gave him a status
reduction with unspecified consequences and denied privileges in some manner that he does not
specify, /d., 997,

In short, Elliott has nol stated a federal claim with regard to the alleged defiance of the
slate court’s orders regarding his property, Am. Cplt., 74-79; against Toole or Glotz with
regard to the January 2001 incident, id., 82; against any of the defendants -- Vance, Khan, Shafi,

Heinze, Toole, Brucker, Proctor, Glotz, Wood, Budz, Addus Healthcare, or unknown persons -—


As indicated carlier, Elliott has persisted in lumping together large groups of defendants
without making any effort to describe their particular roles in the actions of which he complains.
Nonetheless, several separate incidents are discernable. Before addressing the consequences of
Elliott’s continued lumping of defendants, we address each scparate incident to delermine the
extent to which the complaint meets the standards for dismissal sct forth in §1915(e)(2).

Elliott says he was transferred to the TDF (then located in Sheridan, II}inois) on
September 1, 2000, when a petition was filed to commit him under the SVPCA. Am. Cplt., 74.
He says that shortly after that, his property was lost, misplaced, or destroyed by unknown
persons. /d., 75. He filed grievances and made other complaints which put several of the
defendants on notice of the losses. /d., 1976, 78. He alleges that defendant Pedersen, his primary
therapist between September and November 2000, helped him try to locate the property. /d., 77.
He alleges, however, that several defendants essentially ignored unspecified orders from state
court which evidently had something to do with his property (exactly what is unclear), and as a
result, Elliott says, he was unable to participate actively in the SVPCA commitment procecdings
and as a result he was ordered detained. /., 79. These allogations are msufficient to give rise
to a claim against Pedersen, Crouch, Eisenfelder, Heinze, Wood, Budz, Glotz, Monahan,
Burkowski, Steiner, and Baker, the defendants named in 74-79. Elliott alleges no wrongdoing
other than the violation of state court orders. The Court fails to sec how this could give rise to a
federal claim standing alone. To the extent that Elliott is suggesting a due process violation
stemming from alleged interference with his access to the courts, the claim is time-barred, as the
conduct occurred at the latest in November 2000, but Elliott did not file suit until December 10,

2002, beyond the two-year statute of limitations that applies to §1983 claims in this state.


After seeking and obtaining an extension of time, Elliott filed an amended complaint on
May 4, 2003. The Court has spent a great deal of time reviewing and considering the amended
complaint and has made every effort to give Elliott the bencfit of the doubt and to construe the
allegations of the amended complaint liberally. But the fact is that Elliott has largely ignored the
Court’s directive. As will bc seen momentarily, he persists in suing many of the defendants in
large groups while making only the barest of allempt to distinguish their relative roles.

Because Elliott has sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court reviews the
amended complaint to determine whether it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2). The law permits the Court to address
this on a claim-by-claim basis. See fTouse v. Belford, 956 F.2d 711, 718 (7th Cir. 1992).

The amended complaint names sixty-six defendants plus other “unknown persons.”
Elliott alleges that the defendants participated in an ongoing cffort to retaliate against him for
exercising his First Amendment rights, specifically, his attempts to challenge at the institution
and in court certain defendants’ alleged loss, misplacement, or destruction of his property, which
he says he nceded to facilitate his defense of the civil commitment procecdings that landed him
at the TDF, The sixty-six named defendants include DHS officials; Liberty Healthcare
Corporation, the contractor responsible for sexual offender treatment at the TDF, and a number
of Liberty employees; Addus Healthcare Corporation, the contractor responsible for medical and
dental care at the TDF, and a number of its employees; and other persons who appear to be DHS
employees who work at the TDF. Taken as a group, it is likely that the defendants constitute a
significant percentage of the administration and staff of the TDF who have had occasion to deal

with Elliott.


ror THE NORTHERN bisrerctoriiixors — DOGKETED

EASTERN DIVISION SEP 2 5 2003
DENNIS J. ELLIOTT, )
Plaintiff, }
vs. } Case No. 02 C 8949
LINDA R. BAKER, et al., }
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MATTHEW F, KENNELLY, District Judge:

Plaintiff Dennis Eltiott is a resident of the Illinois Department of Human Services’
Treaiment and Detention Facility, located in Joliet, which houses persons detained under the
Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act. Elliott, a frequent litigant in this Court, filed
a pro se lawsuit in December 2002 naming over sixty defendants, along with a motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis. Elliott also asked the Court to foot the bill for duplicating the
complaint so that it could be served on the defendants.

On February 24, 2003, the Court entered an order noting that Elliott’s complaini, which
described ten or so separate incidents between October 2000 and May 2002, “lumped large
groups of defendants together ... without making any effort to distinguish their respective roles”
in the various incidents, Order of Feb, 24, 2003. Thc Court stated that it was unwilling to grant
Elliott leave to procced in forma pauperis “without a reasonable attempt on his part to identify,
to the best of his ability, each defendant’s role in the various events at issue.” We therefore

directed Elliott to file an amended complaint within twenty-eight days.