Headrick v. Calloway

Filing 10

MERIT REVIEW OPINION: Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a federal claim. The Plaintiff may filed an amended complaint by February 12, 201 8. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, or in the amended complaint still fails to state a federal claim, this action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, and a strike will be assessed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff's motion for the Court to appoint counsel 5 is denied. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 01/22/2018. (SKN, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 22 January, 2018 12:48:39 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOSHUA S. HEADRICK,
Plaintiff,
v.
VICTOR CALLOWAY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

17-CV-2254

MERIT REVIEW OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge.
Plaintiff proceeds pro se from his incarceration in Danville
Correctional Center. His Complaint is before the Court for a merit
review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This section requires the
Court to identify cognizable claims stated by the Complaint or
dismiss claims that are not cognizable.1 In reviewing the complaint,
the Court accepts the factual allegations as true, liberally
construing them in Plaintiff's favor and taking Plaintiff’s pro se
status into account. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir.
2013). However, conclusory statements and labels are insufficient.

1

 A prisoner  who has had three prior actions dismissed for failure to state a claim or as frivolous or malicious can 
no longer proceed in forma pauperis unless the prisoner is under “imminent danger of serious physical injury.”  28 
U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Page 1 of 4 

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)(quoted cite omitted).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Calloway, the Warden at
Danville Correctional Center, caused Plaintiff to be kept in
segregation longer than Plaintiff’s scheduled release from
segregation. Plaintiff had apparently been placed in segregation as
punishment for fighting with his cellmate, but Plaintiff’s cellmate
was allegedly released from segregation before Plaintiff.
Placement in a typical segregation cell for relatively short
periods of time does not rise to a constitutional violation, even if
that segregation seems unfair or arbitrary. Sandin v. Conner, 115
S.Ct. 2293, 2301 (1995). For example, in Sandin, the U.S. Supreme
Court found that 30 days of segregation is not the kind of "atypical
and significant hardship . . . in relation to ordinary incidents of
prison life" that might trigger procedural due process protections.
In Marion v. Columbia Correctional Inst., 559 f3d 693 (7th Cir.
2009), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals observed that
"relatively short periods of segregation" from 2 days to 90 days
generally do not implicate a prisoner’s liberty interest under the
Page 2 of 4 

Constitution. Marion v. Columbia Correction Inst., 559 F.3d 693,
697 n. 2 (7th Cir. 2009)(listing cases)(remanding for determination
of conditions in 240-day segregation). In addition to duration, the
conditions in segregation must be "significantly harsher than those
in the normal prison environment" to implicate the constitution. Id.
Plaintiff does not say how long he was kept in segregation. He
appears to mainly challenge the fact the he was kept in longer than
the segregation sentence imposed on him. A document attached
denying Plaintiff’s grievance appeal indicates that Plaintiff was held
two days longer than scheduled. (d/e 9, p. 3.) An extra two days in
segregation would be too minimal to arise to a constitutional
violation. However, Plaintiff does not say how many days total he
was in segregation or describe the conditions and restrictions he
experienced in segregation. Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to
file an amended complaint.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1)

Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28

U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint for failure
to state a federal claim.

Page 3 of 4 

2)

Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by February 12,

2018. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, or if the
amended complaint still fails to state a federal claim. This action
will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, and a strike will be
assessed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
3)

Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to appoint counsel is

denied (5), with leave to renew after Plaintiff demonstrates that he
has made reasonable efforts to find counsel on his own. Pruitt v.
Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). This typically requires
writing to several lawyers and attaching the responses. If Plaintiff
renews his motion, he should set forth how far he has gone in
school, any jobs he has held inside and outside of prison, any
classes he has taken in prison, and any prior litigation experience
he has. Plaintiff asserts that he has some college classes, but he
does not set forth his job history or classes taken/certificates
earned in prison.
ENTERED: 01/22/2018
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 4 of 4