Meyers v. Rios et al

Filing 10

MERIT REVIEW OPINION - Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 4/17/2018. 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. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of this order to file an amended complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in the dismissal of this case, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff's amended complaint will replace Plaintiff's original complaint in its entirety. Accordingly, the amended complaint must contain all allegations against all Defendants. Piecemeal amendments are not accepted. (LN, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 17 April, 2018 02:54:19 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ANTHONY DEJUAN MEYERS,

v.
WARDEN RIOS,

et al.

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants. )

18-1132

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 “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.
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 “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face.” Alexander v. U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(citation
omitted).
Plaintiff alleges that, while he was incarcerated at FCI Pekin in
2010, he “was set up by Warden Rios and [defendant] Jimmenez to
accumulate 8 battery conduct reports on one Lt. Buck that resulted
in 14 months in 24-hour lockdown and all good time taken.” (Doc.
1 at 3). Plaintiff also alleges that prison officials spit in his food in
retaliation for conduct plaintiff does not fully explain.
Page 1 of 2

Plaintiff’s claims arise under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), given
his status as a federal prisoner. Plaintiff appears to allege that
these events occurred in 2010. If so, Plaintiff’s claims would be
barred by the statute of limitations. See Delgado-Brunet v. Clark,
93 F.3d 339, 342 (7th Cir. 1996) (Bivens actions in Illinois have a 2year statute of limitations). In addition, Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477 (1994), bars plaintiff from challenging any findings of fact
that led to the loss of good-time credit until such findings have been
overturned in a habeas corpus proceeding. Finally, plaintiff does
not describe the protected conduct in which he engaged that led to
the retaliation he alleges. See Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 553
(7th Cir. 2009).
The Court will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to provide
additional information in an amended complaint. If Plaintiff
chooses to file an amended complaint, he should describe when
these events happened, whether he lost good-time credit, and if he
did, whether that good-time credit has been restored, and describe
the protected conduct in which he engaged that caused prison
officials to retaliate against him.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
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. § 1915A.
Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of this order to file an
amended complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint will
result in the dismissal of this case, without prejudice, for failure to
state a claim. Plaintiff's amended complaint will replace Plaintiff's
original complaint in its entirety. Accordingly, the amended
complaint must contain all allegations against all Defendants.
Piecemeal amendments are not accepted.
Entered this 17th day of April, 2018.
/s/ Harold A. Baker
___________________________________________
HAROLD A. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 2 of 2