Walker v. Standard et al

Filing 11

MERIT REVIEW ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/31/2017. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO: 1) ATTEMPT SERVICE ON DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO THE STANDARD PROCEDURES; AND, 2) SET AN INTERNAL COURT DEADLINE 60 DAYS FROM THE EN TRY OF THIS ORDER FOR THE COURT TO CHECK ON THE STATUS OF SERVICE AND ENTER SCHEDULING DEADLINES. LASTLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT IF A DEFENDANT FAILS TO SIGN AND RETURN A WAIVER OF SERVICE TO THE CLERK WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE WAIVER IS SENT, THE COURT W ILL 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). See full written Order. (VH, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 31 October, 2017 12:45:40 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
NATHAN C. WALKER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
JEFF STANDARD, et al.,
Defendants.

No.: 17-cv-1252

MERIT REVIEW ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, pursues a § 1983 action alleging interference with his mail
while a pretrial detainee at the Fulton County Jail (“Jail”). The case is before the Court for a
merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In reviewing the Complaint, the Court accepts the
factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in Plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729
F.3d 645, 649-51 (7th Cir. 2013). However, conclusory statements and labels are insufficient.
Enough facts must be provided to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.”
Alexander v. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(citation and internal quotation
marks omitted). While the pleading standard does not require “detailed factual allegations”, it
requires “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully- harmed- me accusation.” Wilson v.
Ryker, 451 Fed. Appx. 588, 589 (7th Cir. 2011) quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009).
Plaintiff claims that in March and April, 2016, he sent six letters directed to a judge at the
Fulton County Courthouse. Plaintiff asserts that mail for the courthouse was picked up by
Defendant Jesse Hampton, a Fulton County bailiff. When Plaintiff received no reply to his
letters, he asked a staff member about it. The unidentified staff member allegedly told him that
Defendant Hampton had posted a memo directing staff to intercept and discard prisoners’ letters

1

to Fulton County judges. Plaintiff claims that his letters to the judge complaining about his
public defender might, if received, have changed the outcome in his criminal case. He alleges
violation of his First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights and a state law claim of
intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Inmates have a First and Fourteenth Amendment substantive right to send and receive
mail. Rowe v. Shake,196 F.3d 778, 781 (7th Cir.1999). See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S.
401, 424–25, 109 S. Ct. 1874, 1887–88, 104 L. Ed. 2d 459 (1989) (the sender and recipient of
personal correspondence has a First and Fourteenth Amendment protection “against unjustified
governmental interference with the intended communication. ...”.

See also, Antonelli v.

Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1432 (7th Cir. 1996) (interference with mail violates right to free speech
and association). Prison officials may, however, examine mail to ensure that it does not contain
contraband. Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678, 685 (7th Cir. 2005)(internal citations
omitted). While prison officials may seize and read inmate mail, they may only do so in
furtherance of an important governmental interest and with no greater restriction than necessary.
See Koutnik v. Brown, 456 F.3d 777, 784–85 (7th Cir. 2006).
Plaintiff states enough at this juncture for First and Fourteenth Amendment claims for
interference with his mail. While Plaintiff claims that Hampton posted a memo, he does not
explain how a bailiff at the County Courthouse would have the authority to post a memo
governing staff conduct at the Jail. Plaintiff does not claim, however, that it was staff who threw
out his mail, but appears to claim that this was done by Hampton. Plaintiff names Lieutenant
LaFary, Jail staff and Sheriff Standard, but asserts no allegations against them. “[T]o be liable
under [Section] 1983, an individual defendant must have caused or participated in a
constitutional deprivation.” Pepper v. Village of Oak Park, 430 F.3d 809, 810 (7th Cir.2005)

2

(citations omitted). Merely naming a defendant in the caption is insufficient to state a claim. See
Collins v. Kibort, 143 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir.1998). These Defendants are DISMISSED.
Plaintiff also asserts a state law claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
“Under Illinois law, a plaintiff claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress must
demonstrate that the defendant intentionally or recklessly engaged in ‘extreme and outrageous
conduct’ that resulted in severe emotional distress.” Dent v. Nally, No. 16-00442, 2016 WL
2865998, at *4 (S.D. Ill. May 17, 2016) (internal citations omitted). “[E]motional distress alone
is not sufficient to give rise to a cause of action. The emotional distress must be severe.”
Sornberger v. City of Knoxville, Ill., 434 F.3d 1006, 1030 (7th Cir. 2006) (internal citations
omitted). “Fright, horror, grief, shame, humiliation, worry, etc. may fall within the ambit of the
term ‘emotional distress,’ these mental conditions alone are not actionable.” Id. at 1030. Here,
Plaintiff does not allege facts sufficient to support the state law claim and it is dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.

This case shall proceed solely against Defendant Hampton for the interception

and destruction of Plaintiff’s mail. Any claims not identified will not be included in the case,
except in the Court's discretion upon motion by a party for good cause shown, or by leave of
court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Defendants Sheriff Standard, Doug
LaFary and Fulton County Jail Staff are DISMISSED.
2.

Plaintiff’s motions for status [9, 10] are rendered MOOT by this order.

3.

The Clerk is directed to send to each Defendant pursuant to this District's internal

procedures: 1) a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service; 2) a Waiver of Service; 3)
a copy of the Complaint; and 4) a copy of this Order.

3

4.

If a Defendant 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 on that
Defendant and will require that Defendant pay the full costs of formal service pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2). If a Defendant no longer works at the address provided
by Plaintiff, the entity for which Defendant worked at the time identified in the Complaint shall
provide to the Clerk Defendant's current work address, or, if not known, Defendant's forwarding
address. This information will be used only for purposes of effecting service. Documentation of
forwarding addresses will be maintained 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 the prescribed by Local Rule. A Motion to

Dismiss is not an answer. The answer it to include all defenses appropriate under the Federal
Rules. The answer and subsequent pleadings are to address the issues and claims identified in
this Order.
6.

Plaintiff shall serve upon any Defendant who has been served, but who is not

represented by counsel, a copy of every filing submitted by Plaintiff for consideration by the
Court, and shall also file a certificate of service stating the date on which the copy was mailed.
Any paper received by a District Judge or Magistrate Judge that has not been filed with the Clerk
or that fails to include a required certificate of service will be stricken by the Court.
7.

Once counsel has appeared for a Defendant, Plaintiff need not send copies of

filings to that Defendant or to that Defendant's counsel. Instead, the Clerk will file Plaintiff's
document electronically and send notice of electronic filing to defense counsel. The notice of
electronic filing shall constitute notice to Defendant pursuant to Local Rule 5.3. If electronic
service on Defendants is not available, Plaintiff will be notified and instructed accordingly.

4

8.

Counsel for Defendants is hereby granted leave to depose Plaintiff at Plaintiff's

place of confinement. Counsel for Defendants shall arrange the time for the depositions.
9.

Plaintiff shall immediately notice the Court of any change in mailing address or

phone number. The Clerk is directed to set an internal court deadline 60 days from the entry of
this Order for the Court to check on the status of service and enter scheduling deadlines.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO:
1) ATTEMPT SERVICE ON DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO THE STANDARD
PROCEDURES; AND,
2) SET AN INTERNAL COURT DEADLINE 60 DAYS FROM THE ENTRY OF
THIS ORDER FOR THE COURT TO CHECK ON THE STATUS OF SERVICE AND ENTER
SCHEDULING DEADLINES.
LASTLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT IF A DEFENDANT 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).
ENTERED: 10/31/2017

_______s/Michael M. Mihm____________
MICHAEL M. MIHM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5