Grissette v. Reed et al
Filing
8
MERIT REVIEW OPINION entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 05/05/2015. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: Plaintiff's motion to waive the initial partial filing feeis granted (5). Plaintiff has no money in his account. 12) The clerk is directed to attempt service on Defendants pursuant to the standard procedures.13) The Clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. See full written Opinion.(JS, ilcd)
E-FILED
Tuesday, 05 May, 2015 09:08:53 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
OSCAR GRISSETTE,
Plaintiff,
v.
JODY REED,
JOHN WEAVER, and
ROBBIE JOHNSON,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
14-CV-1478
MERIT REVIEW OPINION
MICHAEL M.MIHM, U.S. District Judge.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and incarcerated in the Lawrence
Correctional Center, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis on
retaliation claims regarding incidents which occurred in the Illinois
River Correctional Center. The case is before the Court for a merit
review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated from an industry
assignment in March of 2012. He filed a grievance, but Defendant
Johnson allegedly destroyed the grievance. Plaintiff filed another
grievance and then contacted Assistant Warden Jackson. Jackson
Page 1 of 7
directed Plaintiff’s reinstatement, but Defendant Weaver did not
reinstate Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed another grievance, whereupon
Defendant Johnson told Plaintiff that Defendants Reed and Weaver
would make sure that Plaintiff did not get reinstated to his job.
Plaintiff again contacted Assistant Warden Jackson. This time,
Plaintiff was reinstated, but Jackson warned Plaintiff that
Defendants Reed and Weaver did not want Plaintiff in the job and
would terminate Plaintiff “for any little misstep.” (Complaint para.
15.)
About one week after Plaintiff’s reinstatement, Plaintiff was
terminated again. Defendant Reed wrote a false disciplinary report
accusing Plaintiff of damaging equipment, which resulted in
Plaintiff being assessed $900 against his inmate account. Plaintiff
challenged Reed’s report and filed a grievance against Reed for the
false disciplinary report. According to Plaintiff, Defendant Johnson
intercepted and denied that grievance, contrary to standard
procedures.
ANALYSIS
Retaliation against inmates for exercising First Amendment
rights violates the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff had a qualified First
Page 2 of 7
Amendment right to file a grievance and to engage in speech to
obtain reinstatement to his prison job. At this stage, Plaintiff states
a plausible claim for retaliation. See Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817,
822 (1974)(“[A] prison inmate retains those First Amendment rights
that are not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the
legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system.”);
Watkins v. Kasper, 599 F.3d 791, 798 (7th Cir. 2010)(“A prisoner
has a First Amendment right to make grievances about conditions
of confinement.”); Babcock v. White, 102 F.3d 267, 276 (7th Cir.
1996)(retaliation against an inmate for exercising constitutional
rights is unconstitutional). The case will therefore proceed per the
standard procedures.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1)
Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds that Plaintiff states a claim that he
was retaliated against for exercising his protected First Amendment
rights. This case proceeds solely on the claim identified in this
paragraph. Any additional claims shall not be included in the
case, except at the Court’s discretion on motion by a party for good
cause shown or pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
Page 3 of 7
2)
This case is now in the process of service. Plaintiff is
advised to wait until counsel has appeared for Defendants before
filing any motions, in order to give Defendants notice and an
opportunity to respond to those motions. Motions filed before
Defendants' counsel has filed an appearance will generally be
denied as premature. Plaintiff need not submit any evidence to the
Court at this time, unless otherwise directed by the Court.
3)
The Court will attempt service on Defendants by mailing
each Defendant a waiver of service. Defendants have 60 days from
the date the waiver is sent to file an Answer. If Defendants have not
filed Answers or appeared through counsel within 90 days of the
entry of this order, Plaintiff may file a motion requesting the status
of service. After Defendants have been served, the Court will enter
an order setting discovery and dispositive motion deadlines.
4)
With respect to a Defendant who no longer works at the
address provided by Plaintiff, the entity for whom that Defendant
worked while at that address shall provide to the Clerk said
Defendant's current work address, or, if not known, said
Defendant's forwarding address. This information shall be used
only for effectuating service. Documentation of forwarding
Page 4 of 7
addresses shall be retained only by the Clerk and shall not be
maintained in the public docket nor disclosed by the Clerk.
5)
Defendants shall file an answer within 60 days of the
date the waiver is sent by the Clerk. A motion to dismiss is not an
answer. The answer should include all defenses appropriate under
the Federal Rules. The answer and subsequent pleadings shall be
to the issues and claims stated in this Opinion. In general, an
answer sets forth Defendants' positions. The Court does not rule
on the merits of those positions unless and until a motion is filed by
Defendants. Therefore, no response to the answer is necessary or
will be considered.
6)
This District uses electronic filing, which means that,
after Defense counsel has filed an appearance, Defense counsel will
automatically receive electronic notice of any motion or other paper
filed by Plaintiff with the Clerk. Plaintiff does not need to mail to
Defense counsel copies of motions and other papers that Plaintiff
has filed with the Clerk. However, this does not apply to discovery
requests and responses. Discovery requests and responses are not
filed with the Clerk. Plaintiff must mail his discovery requests and
responses directly to Defendants' counsel. Discovery requests or
Page 5 of 7
responses sent to the Clerk will be returned unfiled, unless they are
attached to and the subject of a motion to compel. Discovery does
not begin until Defense counsel has filed an appearance and the
Court has entered a scheduling order, which will explain the
discovery process in more detail.
7)
Counsel for Defendants is hereby granted leave to depose
Plaintiff at his place of confinement. Counsel for Defendants shall
arrange the time for the deposition.
8)
Plaintiff shall immediately notify the Court, in writing, of
any change in his mailing address and telephone number.
Plaintiff's failure to notify the Court of a change in mailing address
or phone number will result in dismissal of this lawsuit, with
prejudice.
9)
If a Defendants fails to sign and return a waiver of service
to the clerk within 30 days after the waiver is sent, the Court will
take appropriate steps to effect formal service through the U.S.
Marshal's service on that Defendant and will require that Defendant
to pay the full costs of formal service pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(d)(2).
Page 6 of 7
10)
Within 10 days of receiving from Defendants' counsel an
authorization to release medical records, Plaintiff is directed to sign
and return the authorization to Defendants' counsel.
11)
Plaintiff’s motion to waive the initial partial filing fee
is granted (5). Plaintiff has no money in his account.
12)
The clerk is directed to attempt service on
Defendants pursuant to the standard procedures.
13)
The Clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified
protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act.
ENTERED: May 5, 2015
FOR THE COURT:
s/Michael M. Mihm
MICHAEL M. MIHM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 7 of 7
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.
Why Is My Information Online?