Byrd v. Blackard et al
Filing
7
MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 1/24/2017. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO: 1. Deny Plaintiff's motions for a status update as moot. 5 , 6 ; and 2. Set aninternal court deadline 30 days from the entry of this order for the court tocheck on the status of the filing of amended complaint, if any. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER.(SL, ilcd)
E-FILED
Tuesday, 24 January, 2017 04:08:51 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MARK BYRD,
Plaintiff,
MAJOR BLACKARD and
LIEUTENANT HENRY
Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 16-1376
MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
This cause is before the Court for merit review of the Plaintiff’s complaint. The
Court is required by 28 U.S.C. §1915A to “screen” the Plaintiff’s complaint, and through
such process to identify and dismiss any legally insufficient claim, or the entire action if
warranted. A claim is legally insufficient if it “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §1915A.
The Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, says Defendants Major Blackard and Lieutenant
Henry violated his First Amendment rights at Pontiac Correctional Center when they
retaliated against Plaintiff for a previous lawsuit. Specifically, Plaintiff says sometime
in March or April 2015, he was moved into a cell with Inmate S who takes psychotropic
medication, was difficult to live with, refused to take his medication, and became
combative. The cell mate also told Plaintiff he either wanted to commit suicide or attack
someone while they slept. Plaintiff claims he was moved into the cell by Lieutenant
Henry and he had made no request to do so. Plaintiff filed an emergency grievance,
which was unsuccessful. Plaintiff chose not to pursue the action further as he was lead
to believe, by various prison officials, that he would be moved. He claims that after a
period of time when he wasn’t moved he went to see Inmate S’s mental health
professional, Mrs. Haag. He explained to Mrs. Haag what he perceived to be Inmate S’s
problems. Mrs. Haag asked to see him again so she could document this in writing. He
saw Mrs. Haag again on May 15, 2015, at which time she said she would talk to
someone about getting Inmate S moved. She also asked if Plaintiff had any problems
with staff before she made the inquiry. Plaintiff told Haag he believed his housing
assignment might be out of retaliation because he was suing seven staff members and
most of them worked under Major Blackard. On May 26, 2015, Haag told Plaintiff that
she had talked to Major Blackard, but he was not going to move himi. Haag put in a
request for Plaintiff to see medical.
Inmate S was eventually moved. Plaintiff believes it was July 2015. Plaintiff sues
Blackard for retaliation and further claims that Inmate S cannot be housed with a
Gangster Disciple. Plaintiff lists himself as a Gangster Disciple. Plaintiff lists Lieutenant
Henry as conspiring with Major Blackord.
On May 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed another grievance, which he attaches. In that
grievance he recites his conversation with Mrs. Haag and his concern about Inmate S
and his belief that this might be retaliatory because he is suing seven staff members,
most of which work under Major Blackard. He says, as he stated in his complaint, that
on May 26, Haag told him Blackard would not approve a move of Inmate S.
Plaintiff has not articulated a First Amendment violation. Plaintiff has not
specifically alleged any conversation with Blackord or Henry, nor any knowledge or
reasoning that would support his claim, other than he believes that to be the case due to
his suing seven other staff members. Furthermore, Plaintiff has not alleged his cell mate
ever physically assaulted him and therefore he cannot recover compensatory damages
for his alleged mental or emotional injuries. If successful, Plaintiff would be limited to
nominal damages and perhaps punitive damages. Pearson v. Welborn, 471 F.3d 732, 744
(7th Cir.2006)(affirming award of nominal damages on First Amendment retaliation
claim, and affirming denial of damages for mental injury under § 1997e(e)); Calhoun v.
DeTella, 319 F.3d 936, 942 (7th Cir.2003)(nominal and punitive damages are available for
Eighth Amendment violation, even if compensatory damages for mental suffering not
available under § 1997e(e)); Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 781 (7th Cir.1999)(“A prisoner is
entitled to judicial relief for a violation of his First Amendment rights aside from any
physical, mental, or emotional injury he may have sustained.”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
Pursuant to its merit review of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court
finds the Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendants Blackard and Henry violated his First
Amendment rights when they retaliated against him based on his housing for a four
month period at Pontiac Correctional Center.
Plaintiff will be allowed leave for an opportunity to correct this and shall be
allowed 30 days to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is reminded that the grievance
attached to his complaint does not mention Lt. Henry and only references Major
Blackford, as there is “a chance that this all might be out of retaliation” because the
seven staff members sued work for Blackford. No direct complaint of Blackford appears
to be made. (Comp., p. 19).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO:
1. Deny Plaintiff’s motions for a status update as moot. [5, 6]; and 2. Set an
internal court deadline 30 days from the entry of this order for the court to
check on the status of the filing of amended complaint, if any.
ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2017.
s/ James E. Shadid
____________________________________________
JAMES E. SHADID
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?