Arrington v. Posey
4:24-cv-04203
| C.D. Ill. | Mar 18, 2025Background
- Otis Arrington, a civilly detained individual at Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility, filed suit pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Assistant Program Director Erin Posey.
- Arrington alleged that Posey ordered his electronics confiscated in retaliation for a formal complaint he made against her to the Illinois State Police.
- Arrington further claimed Posey retaliated against him again after the filing of this lawsuit by sending guards to his cell to confiscate his electronics and disrupt his legal papers.
- He also alleged his cell conditions were inadequate (no air circulation, window that does not open, no fan), which he claimed exacerbated his diabetes-related health concerns.
- The complaint proceeded in forma pauperis and came before the court for merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
- The court assessed whether Arrington’s Amended Complaint properly joined unrelated claims per the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Improper Joinder of Unrelated Claims | Claims should proceed together | Not stated | Dismissed without prejudice for improper joinder |
| Retaliation by Defendant Posey | Posey retaliated for protected conduct | Not stated | Not resolved; court focused on procedural grounds |
| Conditions of Confinement/Cell Conditions | Cell conditions harm his health | Not stated | Not resolved; court focused on procedural grounds |
| Requirement to File Amended Complaint | Not addressed | Not addressed | Plaintiff must file Second Amended Complaint in 30 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Brewster v. North Am. Van Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d 649 (7th Cir. 1972) (in forma pauperis privilege for truly impoverished litigants)
- Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2013) (court must construe pro se pleadings liberally)
- Alexander v. United States, 721 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2013) (plaintiff must state a plausible claim)
- Kadamovas v. Stevens, 706 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 2013) (joinder rules require related claims be joined together)
- George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2007) (unrelated claims against different defendants must be in separate suits)