*1 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To cited only accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois Submitted May ^[*]

Decided

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge No. ‐ Appeal United States District Court

JAMES OWENS, Southern District Illinois. Plaintiff ‐ Appellant SCW v .

SALVADOR A. GODINEZ, et al ., Stephen C. Williams, Magistrate Judge . Defendants Appellees .

O R D E R

James Owens, prisoner, brought suit under because believes nearly dozen employees deliberately ignored medical needs retaliated primarily dissatisfied with adequacy toothpaste, mail detergent three different prisons over six period. *2 15 3892 2 narrowed list defendants at screening, see 28 1915A, later granted summary judgment for defendants. We affirm.

This lawsuit not first one in which Owens has tossed into single complaint mishmash unrelated allegations unrelated defendants. In v. Hinsley , 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011), we warned district courts not allow inmates to flout rules joining defendants, see C IV 18, 20, to circumvent Prison Litigation Reform Act’s fee requirements by combining multiple lawsuits into single complaint. “Unrelated different defendants belong in different suits,” George Smith 2007), we said, apparently to avail. Here, has again pursued same scattershot strategy. urge district courts to be alert to problem.

When Owens, now years old, entered Department Corrections in he already had lost two teeth to gum disease. wears partial dentures after losing eight more teeth. In litigation, which he in he attributes dental problems part to inadequacy dental supplies he received from May May while incarcerated at Illinois’s Hill Correctional Center, May at Big Muddy Correctional Center, from June at Pinckneyville Correctional Center. asserts one travel size tubes toothpaste indigent kit each month at these three prisons were insufficient light gum disease. And, adds, has had enough money greatly overdrawn commissary account buy toothpaste. also complains too poor purchase detergent

correspondence supplies commissary. At Big Muddy, explains, staff gave only enough detergent wash clothes twice per month. And although purchase postage on credit at all three facilities, it could used only correspondence. Prison staff denied grievances inadequate detergent postage. views those denials earlier trying hold large number defendants, including three former directors Corrections, five members its Administrative Review Board, wardens three prisons, several officers counselors, responsible these slights. Screening complaint, concluded several defendants had alleged their personal involvement any constitutional violations. Later concluded related incarceration Hill Big Muddy were barred *3 ‐ two ‐ statute of limitations applicable section arising Illinois. See ILCS 5/13 202; Cesal Moats 721–22 2017). Those decisions left just two for damages that arose while was Pinckneyville: (1) a deliberate indifference claim the warden for denying him adequate dental (2) a retaliation claim the warden, a officer, counselors for allegedly withholding correspondence supplies as punishment for filing The court also pursue a claim the director of the DOC (then Salvador Godinez) for any continuing violations of his constitutional rights. (The current Director of the John Baldwin, is the proper defendant for any official capacity claim.)

After court recruited counsel for the parties consented proceed before a magistrate judge, see 636(c), defendants moved for summary judgment. In granting that motion, court reasoned that lacked evidence that warden knew about Owens’s gum disease or need for more toothpaste than standard amount. Owens’s failed, said, admitted that DOC provide postage inmate except for correspondence, had introduced evidence showing that defendants played a role distributing indigent mailing supplies. Finally, concluded Owens’s for injunctive relief became moot after transfer a new prison where what regarded as an adequate amount toothpaste. appeals, but we cannot address arguments without first deciding whether, as defendants contend, appeal untimely. The magistrate judge entered final judgment case on October 2015. Twenty eight days later filed what entitled a motion for extension time. That document explained an unspecified disability a malfunctioning elevator had prevented going law library where materials for were stored. says had negligent “Rule exception and/or notice appeal” receive an extension time “to appeal court’s ruling.” magistrate judge found good cause for delay extended appeal deadline December 2015. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 4(a)(5). missed deadline, too, four days: notice appeal dated

Still, we may construe request extension time notice appeal, motion within original day window notice appeal let defendant know intent appeal judgment. 3(c)(4) (“An appeal must dismissed informality form title notice appeal, failure name party whose intent appeal otherwise clear *4 No. 15 3892 4 notice.”); Smith v. Barry , 502 U.S. 244, 248–49 (1992) (“If a document within the time specified by Rule 4 gives the notice required by Rule 3, it is effective as a notice of appeal.”); Listenbee v. City of Milwaukee , 976 F.2d 348, 350–51 (7th Cir. 1992) (construing pro se motion extension of time appeal as a notice of appeal). We reject the defendants’ suggestion that November 20 motion is ambiguous about Owens’s intent appeal. Owens said there that was not negligent notice of appeal postjudgment motion, and relief requested was extension “of time appeal court’s ruling.” Our appellate jurisdiction therefore secure.

That brings us merits of appeal. Owens not challenge magistrate judge’s conclusion that his request injunctive relief moot that failed establish genuine issue material fact concerning of deliberate indifference warden, counselors, grievance officers at Pinckneyville. He thus has waived appellate those rulings. See 28(a)(8); Rahn v. Bd. Trustees N. Ill. Univ ., 803 F.3d 285, 295 (7th Cir. 2015). Instead, Owens asserts that DOC liable under Monell v. Social Services , 436 U.S. 658 (1978), its alleged policies providing inmates inadequate amounts toothpaste, mail detergent. But DOC, agency, not “person” can sued under section 1983. See Will v. Mich. Dep ʹ t State Police , 491 U.S. 58, 70–71 (1989); Fairley v. Fermaint , 482 F.3d 897, 904 (7th Cir. 2006). district court thus correctly dismissed part case.

Next faults district dismissing officers counselors accused ignoring administrative complaints appeals. already told him, however, mishandling “grievances persons otherwise did not cause participate underlying conduct states claim.” , 635 F.3d at 953–54.

Finally, argues statute limitations not bar pursuing employees at Hill Big Muddy. Although has housed either facility file suit June 2013, insists limitations period was equitably tolled because, says, staff impeded access courts through 2013. equitable tolling apply, would need show ability file suit frustrated “some extraordinary way.” See Rosado v. Gonzalez , 2016) (applying law); Clay v. Kuhl , N.E.2d (Ill. 2000). has done so. As noted its order dismissing defendants, engaged “nearly constant” during supra ; Blagojevich , ‐ CV DRH (S.D. Ill. Aug. 2009). Moreover, own brief belies contention *5 he faced especially daunting obstacles through when he engage litigation. example, he complains he “only” five visits law library during six months before filed complaint case. Yet never explains why needed visit law library all file complaint. seems attribute delay primarily receiving all “excess boxes” August But say what boxes contained, their contents cannot have essential complaint months before says boxes. considered contentions, none merits discussion.

AFFIRMED.

Notes

[*] agreed decide case without oral argument briefs record adequately present facts arguments, oral argument would significantly aid court. 34(a)(2)(C).