Wells v. Illinois Department of Corrections et al
| Ronald L Wells, Sr |
| Illinois Department of Corrections, LaToya Hughes, Brittany Greene, . Houston, Cheryl Hinthorne, Rusty Sarnes, Karen Norman-Rees, Jane Doe, Krista Hammond, Sean Mitchel, Kellie Dennis and Chance Jones |
| 3:2025cv03190 |
| July 3, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Jonathan E Hawley |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Conditions |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 15, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
TEXT ORDER entered by District Judge Jonathan E Hawley on 12/15/2025. On 11/17/2025, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Amended Complaint with prejudice as a violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20. (Doc. #11 ). Plaintiff now files a Motion for Reconsideration #13 arguing that the Court erred by dismissing his Amended Complaint because his claims against the Defendants are related. Because the Motion was filed within 28 days of entry of the judgment and appears to assert a manifest error of law or fact, the Court construes Plaintiff's Motion as a motion to alter or amend a judgment brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 493-94 (7th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Altering or amending a judgment under Rule 59(e) is permissible when the moving party clearly establishes there is newly discovered evidence or a manifest error of law or fact. Harrington v. City of Chicago, 433 F.3d 542, 546 (7th Cir. 2006). At Merit Review, the Court found Plaintiff's Amended Complaint included multiple unrelated claims against different Defendants. The Court provided a couple examples in its Merit Review Order. For instance, Plaintiff's claim against Defendants Houston and Sarnes regarding his missing personal property and excess legal materials was not properly joined with a claim against Defendant Hammond, who allegedly retaliated against him by withholding his mail, destroying a picture of his wife, and preventing him from sending $100 to his wife. Likewise, a claim regarding the conditions of his confinement during a heatwave in July 2023 was not properly joined with a claim against Defendants Hughes, Jones, Mitchell, and Dennis for allegedly mishandling his grievances regarding Defendant Hammond in 2024. It is unclear from Plaintiff's Motion how his various claims against 10 Defendants located at different facilities are related. The Court did not give leave to amend because Plaintiff had multiple opportunities to state an actionable claim and failed to do so. (See Merit Review Order, Doc. #6 ). Plaintiff has not presented any newly discovered evidence or demonstrated that the Court made a manifest error of law or fact. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion #13 is DENIED. (VH)
|
| Filing 13 MOTION for Reconsideration regarding the Court's Order of 11/17/2025, #11 Merit Review Opinion, by Plaintiff Ronald L Wells, Sr. Responses due by 12/26/2025.(ED) |
| Filing 12 JUDGMENT entered in a civil case (SAG) |
|
Filing 11
MERIT REVIEW ORDER entered by District Judge Jonathan E Hawley on 11/17/2025. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1) Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as a violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20. The Court finds any further amendment would be futile. 2) Defendants Karen Norman-Rees and Jane Doe are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, as Plaintiff did not name them as Defendants in his Amended Complaint. 3) The Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close this case. 4) Although this case has been dismissed, Plaintiff remains responsible for paying the remainder of the $350 filing fee. (See d/e 7/30/2025). 5) If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he must file a notice of appeal with this Court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis MUST identify the issues Plaintiff will present on appeal to assist the Court in determining whether the appeal is taken in good faith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(c); see also Celske v. Edwards, 164 F.3d 396, 398 (7th Cir. 1999) (stating that an appellant should be allowed to submit a statement of the grounds for appealing so that the district judge "can make a reasonable assessment of the issue of good faith"); Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 2000) (providing that a good-faith appeal is an appeal that "a reasonable person could suppose... has some merit" from a legal perspective). If Plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $605 appellate filing fee regardless of the outcome of the appeal. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER.(SAG)
|
| Filing 10 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Ronald L Wells, Sr.(VH) |
|
TEXT ORDER entered by District Judge Jonathan E Hawley on 9/12/2025. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint #9 is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to file the Amended Complaint and set the merit review deadline 30 days out. (VH)
|
| Filing 9 MOTION for Leave to Amend/Correct #1 Complaint by Plaintiff Ronald L Wells, Sr. Responses due by 9/25/2025. (ED) |
|
TEXT ORDER entered by District Judge Jonathan E Hawley on 9/8/2025. On 9/5/2025, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, which was docketed as a Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint #8 . Plaintiff did not sign his Amended Complaint. (Doc. #8 at p. 29). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 states, "[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed... by a party personally if the party is unrepresented." Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint #8 is DENIED. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file a signed Amended Complaint within 21 days of this Order. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint will replace Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety. The Amended Complaint must contain all allegations against all Defendants. Piecemeal amendments are not accepted. If Plaintiff fails to file his signed Amended Complaint on or before 9/29/2025, this case will be dismissed with prejudice.(VH)
|
| Filing 8 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint by Plaintiff Ronald L Wells, Sr. Responses due by 9/19/2025. (JPL) |
| Prisoner Initial Partial Filing Fee received 8/27/2025, in the amount of $ 43.82; receipt number PIA100007399 (AEJ) |
| Filing 7 Remark: Blank Complaint Form. (VH) |
|
Filing 6
MERIT REVIEW ORDER entered by District Judge Jonathan E Hawley on 8/7/2025. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1) Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of this Order to file an Amended Complaint. Failure to file a timely Amended Complaint will result in the dismissal of this case, with prejudice. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint will replace Plaintiff's original Complaint in its entirety. The Amended Complaint must contain all allegations against all Defendants. Piecemeal amendments are not accepted. 2) The Clerk is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a blank Section 1983 complaint form. 3) Plaintiff shall immediately inform the Court, in writing, of any change in his mailing address. Plaintiff's failure to notify the Court of a change in mailing address will result in dismissal of this lawsuit, with prejudice. See full written Order. (VH)
|
|
TEXT ORDER granting #4 Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(b)(1), Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $30.73. The agency having custody of Plaintiff is directed to forward the initial partial filing fee from Plaintiff's account to the Clerk of Court within 30 days of this order. After payment of the initial partial filing fee (or immediately if no funds are available for that payment) the agency having custody of Plaintiff shall make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month's income credited to Plaintiff's account to the Clerk of Court. Income includes all deposits from any source, including gifts. The agency having custody of the plaintiff shall forward these payments each time Plaintiff's account exceeds $10, until the filing fee of $350 is paid in full. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff's place of confinement, to the attention of the Trust Fund Office, and to Plaintiff. Prisoner Prepayment due by 8/29/2025. Entered by District Judge Jonathan E Hawley on 7/30/2025. (VH)
|
| Filing 5 +++ PRISONER TRUST FUND LEDGER by Ronald L Wells, Sr. (JS) |
| Filing 4 PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, filed by Ronald L Wells, Sr.(JS) |
|
Filing 3
TEXT ORDER entered by District Judge Jonathan E Hawley on 7/7/2025. Plaintiff has filed a Complaint but has not paid the $405 filing fee nor filed a petition to proceed in forma pauperis. Within 21 days of the entry of this order, Plaintiff must pay the $405 filing fee in full or file a petition to proceed in forma pauperis with attached trust fund ledgers for the last 6 months. Failure to comply without good cause will result in dismissal of this case without prejudice, and the Plaintiff will still be responsible for payment of the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1914. The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff the forms for proceeding in forma pauperis.(SAG)
|
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF CASE OPENING. Please be advised that your case has been assigned to Judge Jonathan E Hawley. Effective immediately, all documents should be mailed or scanned to the Peoria Division, 100 NE Monroe Street, Peoria, IL 61602. Merit Review Deadline set for 7/28/2025. (Attachments: #1 Notice Regarding Privacy Issues)(SAG) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Ronald L Wells, Sr.(SAG) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
