Clifton v. Brown et al
Filing
7
MERIT REVIEW OPINION Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 7/17/2017. See written Order. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Any amendment to the Complaint would be futile. This case is therefore terminated. All pending motions are denied as moot. The clerk is directed to enter a judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. (ED, ilcd)
E-FILED
Monday, 17 July, 2017 03:43:36 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MELVIN CLIFTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHAD M. BROWN, et al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
17-1272
MERIT REVIEW ORDER
This case is before the court for a merit review of the plaintiff's claims. The court
is required by 28 U.S.C. '1915A to Ascreen@ 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 A(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.
In reviewing the complaint, the Court accepts the factual allegations as true,
liberally construing them in the plaintiff=s favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th
Cir. 2013). However, conclusory statements and labels are insufficient. Enough facts
must be provided to Astate a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.@ Alexander v.
U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(citation omitted). The Court has reviewed the
complaint and has also held a merit review hearing in order to give the plaintiff a
chance to personally explain his claims to the Court.
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center. Plaintiff alleges
that prison officials violated prison rules by waiting 19 days to conduct a hearing on his
disciplinary tickets and then failed to properly handle his grievances. According to
documents Plaintiff attached to his Complaint, Plaintiff lost good-time credits as a result
of this hearing.
A violation of prison rules, on its own, does not create a federally enforceable
right. Allison v. Snyder, 332 F.3d 1076, 1078 (7th Cir. 2003). Due process requires only
that a prisoner receive adequate notice, an opportunity to present a defense, and a
written explanation of the findings made at the hearing. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S.
539, 563-567 (1974). Plaintiff alleges only that the hearing was not conducted within the
timeframe set by prison rules. To the extent that Plaintiff is challenging any factual
findings at the disciplinary hearing, his claims are barred pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477 (1994). Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a claim.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1) Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915A. Any amendment to the Complaint
would be futile. This case is therefore terminated. All pending motions are
denied as moot. The clerk is directed to enter a judgment pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 58.
2) Plaintiff must still pay the full docketing fee of $350 even though his case has
been dismissed. The agency having custody of Plaintiff shall continue to make
monthly payments to the Clerk of Court, as directed in the Court's prior order.
3) If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he must file a notice of appeal with
this Court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). A
motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis should set forth the issues Plaintiff
plans to present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If Plaintiff does
choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $455 appellate filing fee irrespective of
the outcome of the appeal.
Entered this 17th day of July, 2017.
/s/ Harold A. Baker
_________________________________________
HAROLD A. BAKER
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?